3 ms·

> There is no risk for people visiting the US and not doing criminal behavior. There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge unde

by ajross 1y ago

> There is no risk for people visiting the US and not doing criminal behavior. There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies. The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners. They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them.

mlindner 1y ago
I'm sorry but this simply is not true. What you bring up is an example of the media misinformation I talked about.
- ajross 1y ago
  How many examples do you need? Mahmoud Khalil remains jailed in perpetuity without charge. In any reasonable world that should be enough. We can keep going. (Just to head this off: I know you're going to say he's a criminal. That's how the scam works. But if the government could show he's a criminal they'd charge him with a crime. They don't want to, they just want to jail him, LITERALLY because they don't like what he was saying.)
- watwut 1y ago
  By media misinformation you mean media publishing names of people who this happened to along with ignored complaints from judges?
lurk2 1y ago
> There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies. Can you cite any examples? Mahmoud Khalil (who you referenced in another comment) was not charged with a crime, but he isn’t being held in perpetuity: > There is no criminal charge against Khalil. Instead, the government's argument depends on a section of the Cold War–era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that aliens in the U.S. may be deported if the secretary of state believes their presence will have serious negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy. […] On April 1, 2025, New Jersey federal district judge Michael Farbiarz stated his court has jurisdiction over Khalil's case, and issued a stay on Khalil's deportation while it considers a separate case challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention. On April 11, 2025, Louisiana immigration judge Jamee E. Comans ruled that Khalil is deportable, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that his continued presence poses "adverse foreign policy consequence". The judge said she had no authority to question that determination. > The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners. This is not true. > They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them. This is not true.
- ajross 1y ago
  So... you're saying that a warrant issued for Khalil without probable cause, and that he has no expectation to be secure in his person and effects as a result. And his right to petition the government for redress of grievances is suspended pending deportation. All because of some random law passed in 1952. But don't worry, everyone. The fourth amendment stands!
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > All because of some random law passed in 1952. Do you have some particular insight into this issue that would make you more qualified to speak on it than the judges ruling on the case?
    - ajross 1y ago
      There have been no rulings on the constitutionality of his detention. They got an immigration judge to stamp the deportation (but not the warrantless arrest!), which was promptly halted by a federal court which agreed to hear the challenge (because, yes, a warrantless arrest and deportation without trial is fucking batshit per the clear language of the fourth amendment). Attempting to spin that as "the courts ruled it was OK" is just Orwellian. The position of his jailers is that he remains in jail forever (either her or El Salvador or wherever) without right to trial.
- mattnewton 1y ago
  I mean, my understanding is that the United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez basically ruled the fourth amendment doesn't apply for foreigners at borders in 1990, so I think that is true but not new.* What is new is putting people in CECOT forever without trial. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-records-show-about-migrants-sent-to-salvadoran-prison-60-minutes-transcript/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-records-show-about-migrant... One particular case stands out of Andry José Hernández Romero https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/its-a-tradition-outrage-in-venezuela-as-us-deports-makeup-artist-for-religious-tattoos https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/its-a-tradit... And they are certainly arresting people on student visas they don't like, and shifting them to favorable jurisdictions to get the court rulings they want. * My understanding is that the fourth amendment has been eroded in practice over several years, with decisions like border exceptions apply to anywhere within 100 air miles of an airport or coastline, which is where basically everyone in the US lives. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

by ajross 1y ago

mlindner 1y ago

I'm sorry but this simply is not true. What you bring up is an example of the media misinformation I talked about.

ajross 1y ago
How many examples do you need? Mahmoud Khalil remains jailed in perpetuity without charge. In any reasonable world that should be enough. We can keep going. (Just to head this off: I know you're going to say he's a criminal. That's how the scam works. But if the government could show he's a criminal they'd charge him with a crime. They don't want to, they just want to jail him, LITERALLY because they don't like what he was saying.)
watwut 1y ago
By media misinformation you mean media publishing names of people who this happened to along with ignored complaints from judges?

lurk2 1y ago

> There has been extensive coverage of the US detaining people without charge under the new regime's immigration policies. Can you cite any examples? Mahmoud Khalil (who you referenced in another comment) was not charged with a crime, but he isn’t being held in perpetuity: > There is no criminal charge against Khalil. Instead, the government's argument depends on a section of the Cold War–era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that aliens in the U.S. may be deported if the secretary of state believes their presence will have serious negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy. […] On April 1, 2025, New Jersey federal district judge Michael Farbiarz stated his court has jurisdiction over Khalil's case, and issued a stay on Khalil's deportation while it considers a separate case challenging the constitutionality of his arrest and detention. On April 11, 2025, Louisiana immigration judge Jamee E. Comans ruled that Khalil is deportable, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that his continued presence poses "adverse foreign policy consequence". The judge said she had no authority to question that determination. > The fourth amendment has been effectively suspended for foreigners. This is not true. > They are literally putting people in jail forever simply because they don't like them. This is not true.

ajross 1y ago
So... you're saying that a warrant issued for Khalil without probable cause, and that he has no expectation to be secure in his person and effects as a result. And his right to petition the government for redress of grievances is suspended pending deportation. All because of some random law passed in 1952. But don't worry, everyone. The fourth amendment stands!
- lurk2 1y ago
  > All because of some random law passed in 1952. Do you have some particular insight into this issue that would make you more qualified to speak on it than the judges ruling on the case?
  - ajross 1y ago
    There have been no rulings on the constitutionality of his detention. They got an immigration judge to stamp the deportation (but not the warrantless arrest!), which was promptly halted by a federal court which agreed to hear the challenge (because, yes, a warrantless arrest and deportation without trial is fucking batshit per the clear language of the fourth amendment). Attempting to spin that as "the courts ruled it was OK" is just Orwellian. The position of his jailers is that he remains in jail forever (either her or El Salvador or wherever) without right to trial.
mattnewton 1y ago
I mean, my understanding is that the United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez basically ruled the fourth amendment doesn't apply for foreigners at borders in 1990, so I think that is true but not new.* What is new is putting people in CECOT forever without trial. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-records-show-about-migrants-sent-to-salvadoran-prison-60-minutes-transcript/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-records-show-about-migrant... One particular case stands out of Andry José Hernández Romero https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/its-a-tradition-outrage-in-venezuela-as-us-deports-makeup-artist-for-religious-tattoos https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/its-a-tradit... And they are certainly arresting people on student visas they don't like, and shifting them to favorable jurisdictions to get the court rulings they want. * My understanding is that the fourth amendment has been eroded in practice over several years, with decisions like border exceptions apply to anywhere within 100 air miles of an airport or coastline, which is where basically everyone in the US lives. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone