5 ms·

They’re not death camps. But mass detention without due process - that’s a concentration camp.

by grafmax 1y ago

anonfordays 1y ago
[flagged]
- grafmax 1y ago
  At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT, people are held without charges, denied timely access to legal counsel, and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention. At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
  - anonfordays 1y ago
    >At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT CECOT is not in the US. >people are held without charges You do not have to be criminally charged to be deported under civil immigration statues. The years of leftists smugly proclaiming "it's a civil violation, not a crime" ended up being a self own. >denied timely access to legal counsel Again, civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. >and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. >At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. Not in the US. Deportations to CECOT follow the same practices and statutes as deportations to other countries. >The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. I'll give you this, detention/prisons/etc. centers in the US are universally bad. >The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. It's not punishment, it a temporary holding before deportation. > Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights. Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to stay in the US.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      CECOT is part of US mass deportation operations. Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country. In fact the US plans to expand the number of domestic and foreign concentration camps. > civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. You’re appealing to the law. But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it. It is a human right not a legal right. The history of concentration camps is full of legal supports placed there by authoritarian governments. But legal justifications don’t exonerate governments mass incarcerating people without due process. > They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. Sure there is. Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging. > The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. Average detention times are around 50 days. Some people crossing at borders for example can be turned back fairly quickly. Others are held indefinitely. > It’s not punishment Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        >Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country. If illegal immigrants were to voluntarily deport before becoming detained, could they avoid incarceration at CECOT? If the answer is "yes", then it seems their own actions/decisions cause this. Why then should I have sympathy for them? >But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it. What is the exact nature of their due process rights in that situation? What process is due, exactly, someone who is detained because they have no right to be in this country? >Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging The only people who have a say in the matter on whether or not a non-citizen should be allowed to stay or forcibly deported is a citizen. If you'd like to make the case that they should be allowed to stay (as a citizen), then I am willing to hear your argument. I'm not willing to hear theirs, and as much as I can influence my government, I will demand that it be unwilling to hear their (non-citizens') arguments as well. In court, or otherwise. >Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence. If you remove a trespasser from your property, it is not punishment... it is remedy. If the remedy (for some reason) deters future trespassing, that still doesn't make it punishment.
hollerith 1y ago
That definition would make most refugee camps concentration camps.
- grafmax 1y ago
  People aren’t legally detained in refugee camps though. They are fleeing worse conditions.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    OK, but if I am part of a large flow of people fleeing country X for country Y, more often than not, I cannot move around country Y as I please: I am restricted to a refugee camp. Also more often than not, I am not entitled to a hearing in front of a magistrate to dispute that restriction.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Most refugees don’t live in camps. Some camps don’t restrict movement, and those that do restrict it to widely varying degrees. Some do have features of concentration camps. Typically, even in closed camps, there’s no claim that refugees have violated the law as justification for detentions. Refugees are typically fleeing to escape dangerous situations.
      - hollerith 1y ago
        As of the end of 2021 there were around 6.7 million registered refugees from Syria globally. This figure is reported by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in their Global Trends report for 2021. These refugees were primarily hosted in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan -- and most of those are restricted to refugee camps -- and the ones who enjoy the freedom to move around the country probably achieved that through bribery, which of course is not the same thing as having due-process rights. Refugees admitted into Europe are not restricted to camps and do have some due-process rights, but they have at most times been a distinct minority of the refugees in the world.
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are? Can you (without cheating)? You've heard the term before (in school most likely), and if you were in the 10% of the students who weren't borderline flunking, you might even be able to name which amendment enumerates due process rights, but in my experience that's about the most any non-lawyer can even manage. I have a fuzzy notion of what they encompass, admittedly, but nothing about the detention centers or the deportations stands out as a violation of those rights.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are? It's because most people don't have a good grasp of how diverse and often flimsy administrative and civil process (in cases where one party is the .gov is in reality. Typically the answer is "whatever the enforcing agencies come up with", which isn't very reassuring. Like for a traffic ticket they at least haul you before a judge in a public court anyone can attend to give some pretext of the accused having serious rights that protect them. It makes sense. Traffic tickets are a "mass market" product so to speak and so the .gov has to put on a good show even if at the end of the day someone facing a $200 civil traffic fine doesn't actually have the same rights as the guy facing a $200 criminal public urination fine. When it comes to stuff like code enforcement, arcane industry enforcement, fish and game, ICE and everything else federal the process is far less "due", so to speak and is far more likely to not have separation of powers on the government side (i.e. administrative ppl in the enforcement agencies will be making decisions that would be made by a judge in other contexts) I don't know what "due process" consists of for immigration violations but I would bet my last dollar that it is an absolute joke compared to the high end of civil (traffic ticket and the like), which itself is a joke compared to criminal matters. I would really like to see all this shit thrown out by the supreme court. If the .gov, be it fed, state or local, is going to punish people the same way they punish criminals bet it a fine or jail then they ought to meet the same bar. Allowing people to be jailed (in the case of ICE) or fined large sums (in the case of many other types of administrative matters) because it's not nominally a criminal matter is 100% an end run around the constitution.

They’re not death camps. But mass detention without due process - that’s a concentration camp.

anonfordays 1y ago

[flagged]

grafmax 1y ago
At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT, people are held without charges, denied timely access to legal counsel, and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention. At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
- anonfordays 1y ago
  >At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT CECOT is not in the US. >people are held without charges You do not have to be criminally charged to be deported under civil immigration statues. The years of leftists smugly proclaiming "it's a civil violation, not a crime" ended up being a self own. >denied timely access to legal counsel Again, civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. >and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. >At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights. Not in the US. Deportations to CECOT follow the same practices and statutes as deportations to other countries. >The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. I'll give you this, detention/prisons/etc. centers in the US are universally bad. >The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. It's not punishment, it a temporary holding before deportation. > Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights. Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to stay in the US.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    CECOT is part of US mass deportation operations. Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country. In fact the US plans to expand the number of domestic and foreign concentration camps. > civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel. You’re appealing to the law. But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it. It is a human right not a legal right. The history of concentration camps is full of legal supports placed there by authoritarian governments. But legal justifications don’t exonerate governments mass incarcerating people without due process. > They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. Sure there is. Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging. > The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country. Average detention times are around 50 days. Some people crossing at borders for example can be turned back fairly quickly. Others are held indefinitely. > It’s not punishment Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country. If illegal immigrants were to voluntarily deport before becoming detained, could they avoid incarceration at CECOT? If the answer is "yes", then it seems their own actions/decisions cause this. Why then should I have sympathy for them? >But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it. What is the exact nature of their due process rights in that situation? What process is due, exactly, someone who is detained because they have no right to be in this country? >Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging The only people who have a say in the matter on whether or not a non-citizen should be allowed to stay or forcibly deported is a citizen. If you'd like to make the case that they should be allowed to stay (as a citizen), then I am willing to hear your argument. I'm not willing to hear theirs, and as much as I can influence my government, I will demand that it be unwilling to hear their (non-citizens') arguments as well. In court, or otherwise. >Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence. If you remove a trespasser from your property, it is not punishment... it is remedy. If the remedy (for some reason) deters future trespassing, that still doesn't make it punishment.

hollerith 1y ago

That definition would make most refugee camps concentration camps.

grafmax 1y ago
People aren’t legally detained in refugee camps though. They are fleeing worse conditions.
- hollerith 1y ago
  OK, but if I am part of a large flow of people fleeing country X for country Y, more often than not, I cannot move around country Y as I please: I am restricted to a refugee camp. Also more often than not, I am not entitled to a hearing in front of a magistrate to dispute that restriction.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    Most refugees don’t live in camps. Some camps don’t restrict movement, and those that do restrict it to widely varying degrees. Some do have features of concentration camps. Typically, even in closed camps, there’s no claim that refugees have violated the law as justification for detentions. Refugees are typically fleeing to escape dangerous situations.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      As of the end of 2021 there were around 6.7 million registered refugees from Syria globally. This figure is reported by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in their Global Trends report for 2021. These refugees were primarily hosted in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan -- and most of those are restricted to refugee camps -- and the ones who enjoy the freedom to move around the country probably achieved that through bribery, which of course is not the same thing as having due-process rights. Refugees admitted into Europe are not restricted to camps and do have some due-process rights, but they have at most times been a distinct minority of the refugees in the world.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are? Can you (without cheating)? You've heard the term before (in school most likely), and if you were in the 10% of the students who weren't borderline flunking, you might even be able to name which amendment enumerates due process rights, but in my experience that's about the most any non-lawyer can even manage. I have a fuzzy notion of what they encompass, admittedly, but nothing about the detention centers or the deportations stands out as a violation of those rights.

potato3732842 1y ago
>I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are? It's because most people don't have a good grasp of how diverse and often flimsy administrative and civil process (in cases where one party is the .gov is in reality. Typically the answer is "whatever the enforcing agencies come up with", which isn't very reassuring. Like for a traffic ticket they at least haul you before a judge in a public court anyone can attend to give some pretext of the accused having serious rights that protect them. It makes sense. Traffic tickets are a "mass market" product so to speak and so the .gov has to put on a good show even if at the end of the day someone facing a $200 civil traffic fine doesn't actually have the same rights as the guy facing a $200 criminal public urination fine. When it comes to stuff like code enforcement, arcane industry enforcement, fish and game, ICE and everything else federal the process is far less "due", so to speak and is far more likely to not have separation of powers on the government side (i.e. administrative ppl in the enforcement agencies will be making decisions that would be made by a judge in other contexts) I don't know what "due process" consists of for immigration violations but I would bet my last dollar that it is an absolute joke compared to the high end of civil (traffic ticket and the like), which itself is a joke compared to criminal matters. I would really like to see all this shit thrown out by the supreme court. If the .gov, be it fed, state or local, is going to punish people the same way they punish criminals bet it a fine or jail then they ought to meet the same bar. Allowing people to be jailed (in the case of ICE) or fined large sums (in the case of many other types of administrative matters) because it's not nominally a criminal matter is 100% an end run around the constitution.