While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong word highlights that the wrong action is being applied.
The action is a deportation. The targets are people who must/shall not ever be deported. Therefore the headline immediately gets attention for concisely describing a violation.
I am not seeing all the details I want, but given the reports of 4 year olds having to defend themselves without representation it is easy to believe these reports of no or little due process for child citizens.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life must have taken to think a person existing in a space is summarizable as illegal. A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. They could enter a space illegally. They could be unauthorized to be in a space. But by simple fact that they exist in the world, if the law makes them illegal to exist, then that law is unjust and should be considered void ab initio based on the very few common similarities among coherent moral frameworks.
From a practical perspective, as parents and tutelaries of children who have citizenship, they should be allowed to stay as guardians and join the US society. We have so many who thumb their nose at culture in the US, whether the right wanting to commit genocide against the outgroup under the guise of MAGA or the left self-shaming because they know the US can be morally better, but of all people, immigrants, especially undocumented and unauthorized immigrants who risk everything and worked outside standard pathways just for the chance to be at the periphery of US society, vulnerable to the predators and outlaws that inhabit that domain, they should be given extraordinary respect and consideration -- which is what we grant all persons who are in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (which is geographically defined).
I don't know if this is true, it seems more like a situational demand that you're making but giving it the tone of a fact that you're pointing out.
If you break into my house, and I shoot you while you're doing it, I won't go to prison. So either you're illegal, or I've become so extraordinarily legal that I can shoot people with impunity. Whatever has happened in that hypothetical, I do not think it is unjust. If you also do not, you don't agree with your own premise.
Maybe if you make it rhyme, it will slip past people's reasoning skills better.
> I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life
You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the charts.
Ironically, I know myself fairly well and quite a few folks in all political persuasions, and thus remain confident in my priors. But I could see how one could mistake empathy for egomania.
Calling people "illegal" is a hallmark of steeping in rightwing/authoritarian propaganda as it is about "othering" others. Self-abuse should be discouraged whether it is physical (cutting, suicide, etc.) or mental (losing one's capacity and faculties for reasoning to authoritarian propaganda).[0,1,2,3]
[0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3934064
[1] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97810031...
[2] https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-ailes-turne...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad
Respect for law is critical, and valorizing the breaking it undermines the very concept of society.
If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law.
If you pass nonsensical, or worse yet, outright evil laws, not only will they not be respected, but one can reasonably argue that it is a moral duty to disrespect them and assist in their breaking. The Underground Railroad is a prominent historical example of this.
no matter where you land on this, it stands that division on the topic is a top point of conflict in the US. I dont think either side claiming to be above the law helps move society in a more productive direction
>Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned.
If someone choses to disregard the the law, this puts them in conflict with those who do care about it, and they will often seek to force obedience.
If I find you breaking in my house, I dont care about earning your respect, at least not in a way that you would enjoy.
Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?
You refuse to answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Of course not, I don't think smuggling slaves was wrong.
I still hold that refusal to respect the law is incredibly divisive and leads to social conflict and destruction. In the case of the US, it led to the most deadly and destructive war in American history.
When you give up on settling issues with the law, you move to settling them with brute force. I dont think this is a positive direction.
I will ask one last time: Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?
1. "respect for the law" requires both due process, for both citizens and people in the geographical jurisdiction of the US, and respect for the courts. Anyone who works around due process and court orders does not respect the law. This is a general statement regarding the treatment by the current regime, using ICE, towards immigrants and anyone they think is associated to it. Literally -- this article is about deporting of US citizens held incommunicado and without legal representation, and people are already protesting judges being arrested and legal residents being exiled without due process.
2. "this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point" would more appropriately be attributed the othering of immigrants and groups MAGA doesn't agree with - how many Haitians ate dogs and cats in Ohio? Maybe more than 0, but certainly not the unmoored groundswell of false-flag horror that crested at the rightful mocking of Trump's debate performance.[0] Ref: the moral teachings on motes, beams, eyes, Golden Rule, etc. across time and religions of all stripes. I reject the notion that me expressing empathy for immigrants and the xenophobists is rhetoric driving the country apart. It's calling a spade a spade.
3. "If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law." This is sort of one of those feel-good statements that have no meat or content in them. We had a perfectly cromulent immigration reform ready to go until Trump threw a tantrum and got Republican legislators to vote against their own interests because it would hurt his presidential chances. We could go back to that, it had some good political will, instead of the authoritarian nonsense chaotically deployed. Of course, you wouldn't want me to be the authoritarian -- we'd come out of things with an open border and trade agreement across the Americas because that's more efficient and morally justifiable than military intervention at a mis-named "invasion" at the border (almost as poorly named as DOGE). So rather than enabling groups to work towards coherent immigration strategies, we have a tyranny of the majority assumed to be the will of the land.[1]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts
[1] "It is abundantly clear that many activist judges around the country have been acting politically in order to sabotage President Trump's agenda, and disenfranchise the 77 million Americans that voted for him." - Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) (This is 100% political grandstanding, since polls show that most people now disagree with Trump's agenda, [1a])
[1a] https://archive.ph/T7yVp, especially the immigration section is now underwater
The case we heard about yesterday illustrates the difference. A judge Trump appointed raised the alarm not just because due process is being violated but because a two year old’s father was pleading with the court to let his daughter live with him. Prior to this administration, nobody would have blinked an eye at a U.S. citizen switching custody to a U.S. citizen parent, and it’d save the government a lot of money to let that happen.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...