[flagged]
Have they targeted any single criminal yet? Because they have sent two planes of people here to Brazil and nobody there was wanted by either country.
Also, Brazil has a list of wanted criminals at Interpol with known addresses in Florida that they aren't arresting.
This was just a test, and it was successful. They can now disappear and deport anyone they want with no repercussions whatsoever. The GOP is a criminal organization and their followers share the responsibility of what happens next.
It was extra ridiculous/insulting/terrifying to see the heads of both countries in the same room saying that there was nothing they could do about the situation.
It's too soon to say it's "successful": SCOTUS was 9-0 against and that was still only a few days ago, so far from being a success it's now turning into a constitutional crisis... assuming the administration doesn't fold, or flip-flop, or some combination of the two - which we've already seen plenty of[1].
----------
[1] the seemingly arbitrary and capricious tariff changes announced almost every day ever since the-day-after-April-fools-day.
20: He gets brought back in good condition, 19-16: He is gonna get brought back in terrible condition, 15-11 he doesn't come back, 10-1 he is dead
Now, how's that working out so far?
The system more or less worked until the Spanish American War, when the government realized that the militias need some sort of standard in order to integrate properly with the regular army when called up. This led to the creation of the National Guard in 1903. It was tightly integrated into the Army structure in 1933.
What arguably made the Amendment obsolete was the advance of technology. By the early 20th century conventional warfighting took too much firepower, support, and coordination for a loose citizen militia to conduct. At best they could form the core of an insurgent force, but the goal is always to not get to that point.
In theory, that insurgent force could work against a tyrannical federal government. In practice, even if most of the people with the civilian firepower weren't supporting the tyranny I'm not sure it would work out. Conducting an insurgency against a foreign occupier is a lot different than conducting one against a domestic oppressor.
Yeah, precisely my personal take against the current "from utility" argument in the amendment's favor: it's very much not clear that they're especially useful for resisting oppressive governments, for one thing because those are often quite popular at first, and for another, because successful examples of that tend to involve a ton of foreign aid, making the role of private arms rather minor. Meanwhile, examples involving foreign invaders are extremely different (and also often involve lots of foreign aid).
Like, maybe the right deserves to stand anyway for other reasons (maybe it just ought to! Maybe it doesn't need a reason!) but I think that particular argument for it is really misguided, especially if one takes it seriously when forming one's opinions about the broader political landscape. IMO there is no meaningful safeguard against tyranny to be found in that amendment.
That said, there are plenty of examples of progressive forces arming themselves. The Black Panthers are a good example. Without their armed militancy I think the US government would have been a lot less likely to capitulate to the demands of the peaceful civil rights activists.
The people with guns support these measures.
Leftists (e.g. Anarchists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Queer Liberation, Black Liberation, etc.) groups typically are pro-firearms. Not always, but plenty are. The Black Panthers, famously, were armed, but so are are orgs like the Pink Pistols. Martin Luther King Jr. had many guns for self defense, and carried a revolver at times. Marx famously said that workers should be armed.
Centrists (e.g. Democrats, some Labour parties) typically abhor guns, and value the decorum and principle of the instution to keep us all safe. They are a "if society is well ordered, then there's no need for arms" group.
Right wing folks (e.g. Republicans, Proud Boys, KKK, etc.) are the folks who you are describing -- by and large supporting these measures and also want to use firearms to exert control.
It's really, really important if you consider yourself to be a progressive to ask, "Who will gun control laws in America be used to prosecute? Will that be minority groups dispraportionately?"
Historically and presently, armed minorities are more difficult to oppress, and many many leftist groups have historically and presently been armed for the purposes of community defense. By suggesting that arming oneself is a right wing position you erase history and erode current efforts for folks to build community safety systems.
Now, imagine if those people had gotten their way, and how much easier it would be for the administration to do some of the things people claim it wants to do (e.g. gulags).
*Broad generalization
Given that none of the people with firearms have done a damn thing to stop this and how many of them even voted for Trump and support his policies, because American gun and militia culture has been infested with Nazis since forever, I don't see how it could possibly have been any easier. There has been and continues to be no resistance to Trump of any significance. When he does open up the gulags for real, it's going to be America's armed patriot militias who round people up for the regime.
Probably more then one.
Mr Garcia does not have a criminal record, but he was ordered to be deported years ago. He was able to get a temporary reprieve from this by hiring lawyers and working through the legal process, but he did this by almost certainly committing perjury by claiming there were criminal gangs who would kill him if he returned to El Salvador. If you believe the filings in immigration appeals you would have to believe that 99% of the people in the world are being personally pursued by criminal gangs. Perhaps you believe this but I don't find it to be credible. Regardless, whether the legal process is effective doesn't matter here, it IS the legal process and must be followed. My point is the fact Mr Garcia was deported is not itself the issue, it's that it was done in a way that ignores the rule of law (even though it did respect due process). Legally Mr Garcia should be deported eventually, he was only allowed to stay temporarily until he is not "at risk for his life" if he were deported, but the legal process must be respected.
SCOTUS did not command anyone be brought back. They declined to issue an emergency decision blocking an order to 'facilitate' his return, but specifically sent back to the lower court and took issue with the order to 'effectuate' his return. So they are not commanding the government to bring him back, rather they are commanding the government to not prevent his return. Yes this is tedious but reality is often tedious.
> They can now disappear and deport anyone they want
I think you have not made any case that it is valid to assume that we would go from "one person who has already been ordered for deportation by a federal court" who was very publicly deported to "anyone they want" and "disappear".
I basically agree with your sentiment inaccuracy and hyperbole doesn't benefit anyone.
> he did this by almost certainly committing perjury by claiming there were criminal gangs who would kill him if he returned to El Salvador
What evidence is there for this "near certainty"? Your argument here should be with asylum laws, not this individual.
For what it's worth, the situation in El Salvador at the time he left (when he was a minor) does make the claim somewhat credible. There's plenty of evidence that the choice for male youths at that time was leave or join whichever gang controlled your area. The idea that everyone is an "economic migrant" ignores the reality of the situation, which is far more complex.
I don't know what that % is, but we have courts that are deciding these cases every day. The actual court cases are more complex to analyze because lack of adequate council or other factors might influence outcomes. However, of people who attend their interview, about 44% are determined to not have a credible fear.
An awful lot of people move every day, even from areas where there are protection rackets. Do the protection rackets kill everyone who comes home to visit after moving to another city? How do they keep track of who is 'escaping' and who is just moving because they got married or found a job somewhere else? Again, you aren't suggesting that these rackets ban all movement in and out of the areas they loosely control?
People come to the US primarily to find work at a much higher wage than they would be able to find where they are from. Often there is no opportunity for work whatsoever where they are from. They can have a life here that they would never be able to achieve, they can have healthy children who get medical and dental care and will have a chance at an education and a good life here.
If I were in their shoes I would absolutely try to come here illegally if I couldn't do so legally. If I was caught I would, without hesitation, lie and say I would be murdered if I returned home, or whatever else my lawyer carefully prompted me to say, just like Mr Garcia and almost everyone else claiming this. The reality is if these protection rackets were here in the US and not at all in El Salvador, Mr Garcia would almost certainly still choose to live here and just pay the protection money rather than returning home. I doubt that he was ever influenced by gangs in his decision to move here, and I doubt that he has any fear of them if he would return, and I don't think it would change his decision either way.
"I don't find it to be credible"
I explained why it could easily be that the many coming from El Salvador when MS13 was heavily active could in fact be making this legitimate claim. It's a small world with social media. Yes, local MS13 that didn't get paid can catch when someone is back in the country. These are very sophisticated/organized gangs at higher level (at least according to the current US administration).
Nothing you said here negates that.
Which one of our beliefs seems more credible to you, that a man would claim to be in danger (which doesn't hurt anyone) to let him stay with his wife and children and access to employment which pays hundreds or thousands of times higher, or that he would say he's not in danger (even though it doesn't benefit anyone) which hurts his wife and children very badly, and forces him to be separated from his family and the country he has lived in his entire adult life?
The situation he is in is beyond cruel and unjust, but that doesn't mean he's telling the truth.
He proved to the immigration court that his life was in danger, to the point that the court ordered he not be removed to El Salvador. What's next, are you going to claim that court findings, experts in the field and based on hearings/evidence/etc, for criminals should be overridden by your gut feelings? Because of course all criminals claim they are innocent, so court rulings should be ignored? This is the friggen slippy slope people talked about. You see that right? Ignore the court order because populist government should have that power based on their feelings. Or because after violating the order the government claims the order was somehow not valid/illegal.
He didn't just make a claim, the US immigration court found his claim valid enough to issue a legally binding order that he can not be return to El Salvador. The President ignored the process for overturning that order, the President ignored the order itself, and sent this person not only to El Salvador, but to a prison solely housing the M13 members that the United States Immigration court found legally were a risk to this man's life.
You are allowed to form your own opinions also, you don't just have to read a news article and then try your best to update your thoughts to conform to the daily talking points for whichever side you follow.
You went pretty low in your comment by the way. Really shows you operating out of your feelings. Which is understandable, we are all human. But also shows maybe you shouldn't be making life or death judgements of other people.
BTW I think our immigration system has been HEAVILY abused by Democrats to get immigration policies they can't any other way. That they exploit more conservative people like me's empathy to create a loophole. That doesn't mean I judge the people that came here and placed determination of their life in our system, I blame the Democrats, and I try to change the system. Not condemn random people caught up in that. I want change, but this is the absolutely wrong way to go about it. I don't want a soul crushing machine running my country. I want the USA I grew up loving, that my family sacrificed for. The shinning beacon on a hill. And I'm not for turning off that light just because it's hard. Having civil rights is hard and expensive and nuanced.
I will ALWAYS try to learn and incorporate new thinking/understanding of events. Not sure how that is a shortcoming. It's actually really hard and uncomfortable.
I think:
- he's lying about being in danger, but I also say that is reasonable for him to lie and I would do the same thing without hesitation
- it's unjust, unfair, and cruel to deport him after half his life and entire adult life, and his wife and children here
- that legally he should *NOT* be deported while his deportation order is on hold because that is what the law says
- that legally he should (and probably would) eventually be deported since that is just what the law says and he was ordered to be deported already, and that is literally what 'temporary' implies (the rule of law cuts both ways)
- I never condemned the man or made any unfair assumptions about him. I certainly never said or implied at all that he was a criminal, that he had any relationship to any gang, that he should have been deported extra-legally and put in a foreign prison without trial, because that is all insane. I said his rights WERE violated, but specifically that his right to due process was not violated (he did have a trial already and lost). (Being returned to your home country is not a punishment and it doesn't deprive you of any rights, excepting if you have already become a citizen).
So my point, if I made it poorly, is that this individual being deported is not a legal injustice against him, most likely he should be deported under current law, and most likely he would have been deported in the next year or two in any case. The injustice here is that his deportation was carried out extra-legally and in defiance of the law and that the US is complicit (or really actively causing) humans to be jailed without due process or really any process.
That means that he was a father, that he was (or was not) a member of MS13, that he had (or didn't have) a job, that he was a nice man (or not a nice man), that he love (or hated) his mother, that his kids are honor students (or hoodlums) is all irrelevant and nobody should care about it in the context of what is going on. He was here illegally, but he was also legally allowed to stay for a little while longer. That any person was extra legally handed over to a foreign government with instructions and payment to imprison them without trial is beyond unacceptable.
I don't know what's low about any of that. It's very hard to comment in an online space on political issues because people, in general, do not use their ability to read and comprehend. They read the first 5 words, assume that the rest is either "good" or "bad" depending on whether it's leaning towards the opinion they read from whichever outlet conveys to them the talking points for their political party, and then they react by repeating those same talking points. If you have an opinion that is anything but repeating what one of the two approved opinions is that day people really fail to cope with that.
"I think: - he's lying about being in danger" - this is the basic premise you have made this entire time. Yet you also continue to claim:
"I never condemned the man or made any unfair assumptions about him"
Your entire premise is a blanket judgement should be applied to people seeking asylum as to them being liars, based on 'because of course they are'. While I agree that there are strong incentives to lie, I don't use solely that incentive to then baseless claim 'he and all asylum seekers are lying' like you continue to do. We have immigration courts and people directly responsible for determining this better than you or I. They determined the threat to his life was real enough to put a stay on him being sent back to his home country even though they denied his asylum claim. My 'current days talking point' position is that in America we don't apply blanket assumptions like this, and that we have a system of rules, laws, courts, and judges that make those determination. A truly toxic position to hold today I guess because... something unrelated to current talking points? I've held this position my entire life. As did every single person around me. From conservative grandfathers that fought in WW2, to hippie parents, to teachers, to... basically everyone until recently. But I'm adopting the current day take?
I think 'all members of XYZ immigrant group are liars' is a horrible take, and has led us down bad paths in the past. Using that claim to bypass due process, in situations where people's actual lives are in danger, because the Constitution/due process/the American way is expensive and takes too long is a popular take/is too hard on the scale of an entire country full of people, I just don't share it.
It's not that they should be assumed to be liars, I never meant that.
It's that there is no reason to listen to what they say. Either they can provide evidence that they deserve asylum or not. Everyone would say they should get asylum.
If they were not in danger: they say they were in danger
If they were in danger: they say they were in danger
Since they say the same thing either way, it is pointless to even factor in what they say. Some people are telling the truth, some people are lying, they all say the same thing so what someone says has no information value.
When making the initial determination on whether to allow someone to stay in the country, they do not have to show evidence, they just have to make a credible claim, and about 85% of those claims are accepted. Then later they have to show evidence at their interview and hearing. Of the people who pass the bar for the initial claim about 90% are not actually granted asylum, but about 80% drop out of the system (although the numbers don't prove they were lying because there are other factors). So initially 85% are approved (like the person in question here) and then later only 10% of those people actually show sufficient evidence of a credible fear. This doesn't prove that most of them are lying, but of all the people that claim they are in danger to be allowed to enter/stay 90% don't back it up with evidence, and 80% don't even complete the process, which I think is very strong evidence that a substantial majority are lying (even if you give the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe 50% of them can't complete the process because they don't understand it, lack resources, etc, that is still 50% that were lying).
It's notable that during covid, when claiming you were in danger did not give you an easy way to enter the country immediately, people also stopped claiming they were in danger.
Finally, it is probably important to quantify what 'danger' actually means. Is it a 10% chance of being killed? 1%? 1/1000? Does going home have to be more dangerous than the transportation to get there? Does it have to be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle? The murder rate in El Salvador is currently lower than Baltimore, a LOT lower. It's beyond unreasonable to defer deportations to a place if it's safer than where the person is staying now.
You keep trying to justify your claim with 'we need to categorize/make determinations on these groups because reasons' but not engaging with that you think we should categorize a class of immigrants as perjures simply because of the class they fit in' because to do otherwise makes immigration policies hard/able to be abused'. We used to believe as a nation in the theory we would rather that 10 criminals go free if it prevents one innocent person from going to prison. I get it's hard, and it has negative impacts to follow our Constitution and what our nation believes in. It's so hard that people have had to die to secure those things. It's so hard that my grandfathers faced crippling life long injuries fighting for their belief in it in WW2. My understanding it's hard doesn't mean I think we should just throw it away. Blanket 'xyz people are criminal liars' has no place in the United States of America. Systems that are aware of the incentive to lie, sure. But that is why we have courts and a rule of law, not labels on entire groups of people. That Democrats allowed abuse doesn't mean we give up on what America is. You can keep giving me bullet points but your basic premise is so flawed to me they don't matter.
Imagine you were talking about the Chinese in the U.S. in the 1800s. You’d have the same kinds of bullet points,claims about fraud, about them being impossible to integrate, claims it just too many people, about systems being overwhelmed. That’s how we got the Chinese Exclusion Act. A whole race of people labeled suspect by default, stripped of legal protections, barred from citizenship, and assumed to be lying just to get in. It was wrong then, and it’s just as wrong now. Policies built on fear and group guilt erode everything we claim to stand for. If we don’t push back against that, we’re not protecting our country we’re abandoning it.
I said I think it's unfair and cruel that he is being forced to leave at all. I think it's immoral. I also think he told the story that let him stay with his family rather than the truth, and I don't fault him if he did do that. Anyone would do that.
I think you should, for practice and because it would help you be a better person, try to have a disagreement with someone without thinking they must be racist. I think it would be new for you but I think it would be healthy to try it.
I don't think you are racist, I never called you racist, but I think what you are saying is wrong and is the type of group guilt assignment that has been used for very f'd up stuff in the past and not how we do things in the US. Again, your entire premise is he's lying because of the class he is in. That is the slippery slope that I am calling out. Your own words. You didn't judge him unfairly you say, you just said he committed criminal perjury based on your knowledge that he's a foreigner seeking asylum. I said that the system should be structured to recognize the incentives to lie, but we shouldn't judge people based on their class, you continued to say all foreigners seeking asylum are probably liars, especially your original example individual, based SOLELY on that he is a foreigner seeking asylum.
I explained my reasoning. And I even said I agreed that the Democrats have broken the system, and that the courts needed to be structured to account for the incentive to lie. But I didn't like classifying a group/class of people liars based on their class. 'All poor people steal because they are poor and have incentive' is basically what you are saying. 'All people in Alabama are dumb, Bob is from Alabama, Bob's dumb'. Nah, I refuse all of that, labeling a group, assigning a characteristic because Bob's a member of a group. I never just tried to shout you down saying 'racist', I responded in way too many words :)
And again you resort to the low, personal attacks. Super lame, basic internet dig you gave there too. Because I quoted your words back at you and I don't think in the USA we should classify groups as guilty.
What I'm saying is that if you can show that it is very likely that 99% of the people from Alabama are dumb (this is not true but for the sake of argument), and Bob is from Alabama, there's approximately a 99% chance that Bob is dumb if you don't know anything else about Bob to improve your estimate. This is just true, and it's obvious, and if you read what I said it's exactly how I framed it (he's very likely or almost certainly lying). This isn't because of class, or race, or age, or whether they are trans or whatever else.
One more time:
People come to the border or get caught in the US without a visa. If they say "I'm in danger" about 85% of them are allowed to stay in the US while their claim is processed. Of those people who stay, only 10% end up being approved. 10% are denied, and 80% don't show up for the interview, get arrested for something else, self deport, etc. So best case, if you trust our judges, half are not credible. Since the 20% that show up probably, on average, have the best cases it's a fairly safe bet that the 80% who don't show up wouldn't break 50/50, maybe more like 80/20. So 74% would be found not credible (10% who are denied with interview, and 80% of the 80% who don't show up), 26% credible. That's a pretty overwhelming majority who are not making an honest claim. But again, if we just go with the numbers we know, it's 50/50, half are lying (or if you prefer "making an incredible claim they are unable to support with plausible evidence").
You don't seem to be able to comprehend my basic argument. I concede that there are incentives to lie and the system should account for that, but that we shouldn't label a class criminal perjurers because down that path lies nothing good. I've given you more response/good faith than you have me. You keep saying you haven't labeled this man anything but then call him a criminal perjurer and imply his grounds for being in the country are bullshit. But other than that, yeah, you haven't called him anything. All based on 'he sought asylum'.
You say 10% are approved, which matches Americas past 'We would rather 10 criminals go free than 1 innocent person imprisoned'. By your words it sounds like this is a part of America's thought about itself/it's character that you don't agree with. (Now talking about your personal judgement).
You keep insisting that I'm making broad racist claims about a group of people, over and over.
You seem to think I have some secret agenda to support Trump or his policy, and you keep arguing as though arguing against that agenda is the same as arguing against what I'm saying. This is why I say you aren't honestly engaging and you are repeating talking points. I don't have a secret agenda, I'm a registered Democrat and I've never voted for a Republican as far as I can remember. I also think that most people claiming asylum are not being honest, because that's just what the information I have available clearly suggests.
You want to pick an arbitrarily impossible standard of evidence which is not reasonable and not even used in actual courts when evaluating whether testimony is credible or honest (that there is a criminal perjury conviction). People are caught lying in court every day, even when that's obvious and provable they are rarely (as in almost never) pursued for perjury charges.
Frankly at this point it's clear that you kindof agree with what I'm saying, that a lot of people lie in this process, and it's not the ground truth you are disputing but rather you want me to not say it because it might have consequences if we say things like this, but also you think the system needs to be reformed to address this problem, but also we shouldn't admit there's a problem.