3 ms·

Difficult to describe them as choosing to do anything: > ICE held the families incommunicado, refusing or failing to respond to multiple attempts by attorneys

Difficult to describe them as choosing to do anything: > ICE held the families incommunicado, refusing or failing to respond to multiple attempts by attorneys and family members to contact them. In one instance, a mother was granted less than one minute on the phone before the call was abruptly terminated when her spouse tried to provide legal counsel’s phone number. What would they do, leave their child in an ICE facility and hope that somehow word gets back to family to go get them?

gpm 2y ago
They would transfer custody to an individual who was allowed to remain in the US. This had been organized in the case of at least one of the US citizens deported (expelled?) here.
- Volundr 2y ago
  How do you arrange this when not allowed to speak with anyone?
  - gpm 2y ago
    The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper... The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. To be clear, I'm not defending any of ICEs actions here, I'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that from happening.
    - op00to 2y ago
      You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that it was the parents decision rather than an action forced by ICE.
      - gpm 2y ago
        I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant to excuse any other violations. I am not asserting that ICE followed any of the parents decisions, so I don't see that I could have possibly accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because they made the parents make an impossible choice and then followed it.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      > The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?
      - gpm 2y ago
        To the extent that they let the mother make a decision, which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points to that. We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.
        chasd00 2y ago
        > We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.
        gpm 2y ago
        The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo. And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either. The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.
- elicksaur 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - exe34 2y ago
    Is it really "deported" without a court ruling? I thought it was human trafficking?
    - tomrod 2y ago
      That must be the common way to use these terms, that's how I understand it too.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Rendered
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wslh 2y ago
  Easy to explain, traumatic to experiment.
- woggy 2y ago
  [flagged]
ashoeafoot 2y ago
[flagged]
- andrepd 2y ago
  Jesus christ hn
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Hn, as a forum for discussion, is fundamentally not equipped to rationally discuss America going this far off the rails. It is far better suited for less difficult topics, like yet another web framework being developed or some 2% improvements in database access efficiency. For discussing real problems that impact human beings existentially, face-to-face conversation is vastly superior.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  They wouldn't let these kids have toothpaste the last time they did this.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Subdermal tracking implants then? Although I wouldn't put it past these drooling sadists to start cutting things out of their prisoners.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      Much simpler: don't jail kids, don't jail parents in deportation proceedings.
    - lynndotpy 2y ago
      I can't tell if this is a serious suggestion, or if it's proposed in the same tone as "a modest proposal". In case you are serious: This is a pretty horrifying proposal. Humans can get microchipped, but these cost money, are very painful to administer, and importantly are RFID only, i.e. not useful for finding ones own children.
Terr_ 2y ago
Especially when the same politicians and agencies pushing the whole cruel scheme have a past history of permanently losing hundreds of children. [0] "Leave your 2-year-old with the angry government man who will totes ensure they are reunited with your spouse" is not a choice that exists. [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-family-separation-border https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-family-s...

gpm 2y ago

They would transfer custody to an individual who was allowed to remain in the US. This had been organized in the case of at least one of the US citizens deported (expelled?) here.

Volundr 2y ago
How do you arrange this when not allowed to speak with anyone?
- gpm 2y ago
  The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper... The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. To be clear, I'm not defending any of ICEs actions here, I'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that from happening.
  - op00to 2y ago
    You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that it was the parents decision rather than an action forced by ICE.
    - gpm 2y ago
      I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant to excuse any other violations. I am not asserting that ICE followed any of the parents decisions, so I don't see that I could have possibly accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because they made the parents make an impossible choice and then followed it.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    > The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?
    - gpm 2y ago
      To the extent that they let the mother make a decision, which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points to that. We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.
      - chasd00 2y ago
        > We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.
        gpm 2y ago
        The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo. And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either. The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.
elicksaur 2y ago
[flagged]
- exe34 2y ago
  Is it really "deported" without a court ruling? I thought it was human trafficking?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    That must be the common way to use these terms, that's how I understand it too.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Rendered
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wslh 2y ago
Easy to explain, traumatic to experiment.
woggy 2y ago
[flagged]

ashoeafoot 2y ago

[flagged]

andrepd 2y ago
Jesus christ hn
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Hn, as a forum for discussion, is fundamentally not equipped to rationally discuss America going this far off the rails. It is far better suited for less difficult topics, like yet another web framework being developed or some 2% improvements in database access efficiency. For discussing real problems that impact human beings existentially, face-to-face conversation is vastly superior.
NewJazz 2y ago
They wouldn't let these kids have toothpaste the last time they did this.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Subdermal tracking implants then? Although I wouldn't put it past these drooling sadists to start cutting things out of their prisoners.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Much simpler: don't jail kids, don't jail parents in deportation proceedings.
  - lynndotpy 2y ago
    I can't tell if this is a serious suggestion, or if it's proposed in the same tone as "a modest proposal". In case you are serious: This is a pretty horrifying proposal. Humans can get microchipped, but these cost money, are very painful to administer, and importantly are RFID only, i.e. not useful for finding ones own children.

Terr_ 2y ago

Especially when the same politicians and agencies pushing the whole cruel scheme have a past history of permanently losing hundreds of children. [0] "Leave your 2-year-old with the angry government man who will totes ensure they are reunited with your spouse" is not a choice that exists. [0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-family-separation-border https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/16/us-lasting-harm-family-s...