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 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.