5 ms·

If the facts of this case are true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Ab

If the facts of this case are true: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego... then this is an unthinkable crime and has to be the red line for both sides of politics.

generalizations 2y ago
[flagged]
- duxup 2y ago
  I think the bystander effect is real.
  - generalizations 2y ago
    I think I don't believe that source without better evidence. It could be totally accurate - or, chances are, it's spinning a story.
bloppe 2y ago
It doesn't have to be a red line for maga. In fact, for them, the cruelty is the whole point. They want the fear and simply don't care about laws.
- tharmas 2y ago
  Yes, this is exactly it. Eventually the cruelty and fear become the ends themselves rather than a means to an end.
- generalizations 2y ago
  > don't care about laws Look at the legal analysis, not the sensationalist story: this is IIRC preexisting legal machinery, now being used for a different purpose. You dislike how it is used; I dislike that it exists. We are not the same.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done. But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before. Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
    - generalizations 2y ago
      Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the due process question is. Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama). Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists". I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
      - Hizonner 2y ago
        > Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process Even the current Trump-enabling Supreme Court just affirmed that they get due process. They restricted the judicial vehicle for that to habeas corpus, which sucks because the person being grabbed has to actively request it... but they were clear that there had to be actual, meaningful access to habeas. At an absolute minimum, the claim that somebody's a non-citizen to begin with is something that has to be proven at a habeas hearing. ... and permanent residents, at least, are statutorily entitled to have the government show cause before removing them. It can be pretty shitty half-assed cause. And it can be shown in a shitty half-assed administrative immigration "court". But it has to be shown. And if it's not shown properly, that can be appealed to a real court.

generalizations 2y ago

[flagged]

duxup 2y ago
I think the bystander effect is real.
- generalizations 2y ago
  I think I don't believe that source without better evidence. It could be totally accurate - or, chances are, it's spinning a story.

bloppe 2y ago

It doesn't have to be a red line for maga. In fact, for them, the cruelty is the whole point. They want the fear and simply don't care about laws.

tharmas 2y ago
Yes, this is exactly it. Eventually the cruelty and fear become the ends themselves rather than a means to an end.
generalizations 2y ago
> don't care about laws Look at the legal analysis, not the sensationalist story: this is IIRC preexisting legal machinery, now being used for a different purpose. You dislike how it is used; I dislike that it exists. We are not the same.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done. But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before. Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
  - generalizations 2y ago
    Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the due process question is. Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama). Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists". I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
    - Hizonner 2y ago
      > Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process Even the current Trump-enabling Supreme Court just affirmed that they get due process. They restricted the judicial vehicle for that to habeas corpus, which sucks because the person being grabbed has to actively request it... but they were clear that there had to be actual, meaningful access to habeas. At an absolute minimum, the claim that somebody's a non-citizen to begin with is something that has to be proven at a habeas hearing. ... and permanent residents, at least, are statutorily entitled to have the government show cause before removing them. It can be pretty shitty half-assed cause. And it can be shown in a shitty half-assed administrative immigration "court". But it has to be shown. And if it's not shown properly, that can be appealed to a real court.