8 ms·

No, what's critical is not the existence of a contract or not, but whether the US has actual control over the prisoners. That part is undeniable regardless of a

No, what's critical is not the existence of a contract or not, but whether the US has actual control over the prisoners. That part is undeniable regardless of a contract. Xinis derives this view not from evidence of a contract, but first and foremost from the fact that to have lost control of the prisoners would involve having discarded the INA entirely, which the executive obviously cannot do. From immediately before your quote: > Surely, Defendants do not mean to suggest that they have wholesale erased the substantive and procedural protections of the INA in one fell swoop by dropping those individuals in CECOT without recourse My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention. We have no evidence beyond an AP report about a memo that this is the case. Neither we nor the judges know what the terms of this agreement are. For the judges' purposes, the terms are irrelevant beyond "does the US have control," which of course they do.

ranger_danger 2y ago
> My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention. Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free. Where there's money, there's some kind of agreement. Even if it's completely unspoken and unwritten (which I doubt either way). If the money stops, so would their acceptance of droves of new deportees. Not to mention that $6M for 300 people indefinitely is nowhere near enough... but for 1 year it certainly makes a lot more sense, I think that comes out to $20k/yr per person, which is cheaper than what it costs the US to do the same.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Nobody is doubting the existence of an agreement. I am asserting that we have no way to be certain about any of the terms of said agreement, given that no one has seen it. (And as a side assertion, that the Trump administration is breaking the law by not having said contract available for at least the judge, if not the public).
- Volundr 2y ago
  > Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free. Remember they will be doing forced labor. They've essentially been remanded into slavery.

ranger_danger 2y ago

> My issue with your phrasing is the assertion that El Salvador is somehow a 1-year relationship or detention. Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free. Where there's money, there's some kind of agreement. Even if it's completely unspoken and unwritten (which I doubt either way). If the money stops, so would their acceptance of droves of new deportees. Not to mention that $6M for 300 people indefinitely is nowhere near enough... but for 1 year it certainly makes a lot more sense, I think that comes out to $20k/yr per person, which is cheaper than what it costs the US to do the same.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Nobody is doubting the existence of an agreement. I am asserting that we have no way to be certain about any of the terms of said agreement, given that no one has seen it. (And as a side assertion, that the Trump administration is breaking the law by not having said contract available for at least the judge, if not the public).
Volundr 2y ago
> Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free. Remember they will be doing forced labor. They've essentially been remanded into slavery.