6 ms·

> "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be more appropriate. While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong word highligh

by bryant 1y ago

> "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be more appropriate. 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.

OutOfHere 1y ago
I think what happened here is that the parents were here illegally. The children just had to accompany the parents. I find it quite possible that the children will be allowed back in once they no longer have to depend on their parents.
- davorak 1y ago
  The reports of no due process or little to no due process for citizens[1], that is the main point to my understanding. Due process for [1] would at least include making sure the proper documentation was in order so they could easily return in the future, making sure any health care needs could be meet in Honduras or any other critical needs, (not all the details are in but) the father in [1] wanted the child to stay in the US, but they were deported anyway. 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-deportation-donald-trump-00311631 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
- macinjosh 1y ago
  You are correct. People watch too much TV and think this is out of the ordinary. If the children were kept here we'd be weeping about kids being separated from their parents.
  - acdha 1y ago
    This just dishonest. In the past, the rule of law applied. The law is not perfect or kind, but there was a process where people could defend themselves and egregious violations of U.S. law like this would be avoided. It wouldn’t be the child being “separated from their parents”, it would be the family choosing to go together OR the family choosing to have their child live with relatives. 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-deportation-donald-trump-00311631 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      That's an unfortunate incident. As per my understanding, the father can technically go get the child back while the child is under the age of 16, using just the child's US birth certificate, but only through the land border. I understand that this can be difficult since traveling from Honduras to a US-Mexico land border crossing could not be too easy.
      - computerthings 1y ago
        [dead]
      - sanderjd 1y ago
        It's not just "unfortunate", it's also illegal.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    Yes, because expelling citizens is illegal, and separating children from their families is tragic. Just being sarcastic and cynical about it doesn't change this.
- sanderjd 1y ago
  What does this "had to" mean? Was it "forced to" or was it "chose to"? Seems like the former.
- tomrod 1y ago
  > here illegally 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).
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. 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.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      > 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 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3934064 [1] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003170051-8/interactive-propaganda-yunkang-yang-lance-bennett https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97810031... [2] https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-ailes-turned/d/1616440690 https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-ailes-turne... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad
sanderjd 1y ago
No, deporting means sending someone back to their country of origin. You can't "deport" someone from their country of origin to some other country.

by bryant 1y ago

OutOfHere 1y ago

I think what happened here is that the parents were here illegally. The children just had to accompany the parents. I find it quite possible that the children will be allowed back in once they no longer have to depend on their parents.

davorak 1y ago
The reports of no due process or little to no due process for citizens[1], that is the main point to my understanding. Due process for [1] would at least include making sure the proper documentation was in order so they could easily return in the future, making sure any health care needs could be meet in Honduras or any other critical needs, (not all the details are in but) the father in [1] wanted the child to stay in the US, but they were deported anyway. 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-deportation-donald-trump-00311631 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
macinjosh 1y ago
You are correct. People watch too much TV and think this is out of the ordinary. If the children were kept here we'd be weeping about kids being separated from their parents.
- acdha 1y ago
  This just dishonest. In the past, the rule of law applied. The law is not perfect or kind, but there was a process where people could defend themselves and egregious violations of U.S. law like this would be avoided. It wouldn’t be the child being “separated from their parents”, it would be the family choosing to go together OR the family choosing to have their child live with relatives. 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-deportation-donald-trump-00311631 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    That's an unfortunate incident. As per my understanding, the father can technically go get the child back while the child is under the age of 16, using just the child's US birth certificate, but only through the land border. I understand that this can be difficult since traveling from Honduras to a US-Mexico land border crossing could not be too easy.
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      It's not just "unfortunate", it's also illegal.
- sanderjd 1y ago
  Yes, because expelling citizens is illegal, and separating children from their families is tragic. Just being sarcastic and cynical about it doesn't change this.
sanderjd 1y ago
What does this "had to" mean? Was it "forced to" or was it "chose to"? Seems like the former.
tomrod 1y ago
> here illegally 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).
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. 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.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    > 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 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3934064 [1] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003170051-8/interactive-propaganda-yunkang-yang-lance-bennett https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97810031... [2] https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-ailes-turned/d/1616440690 https://www.biblio.com/book/fox-effect-how-roger-ailes-turne... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad

sanderjd 1y ago

No, deporting means sending someone back to their country of origin. You can't "deport" someone from their country of origin to some other country.