Since we’re using El Salvador like it’s a new Gitmo. Like yes, it would still suck for the people from El Salvador.
But at least people from other countries would go back to their home country. Presumably to be treated far better than El Salvador.
Because congress is complicit
Because then they wouldn’t be able to deport actual US citizens who aren’t the right color. I mean, if they actually respected the rule of law and weren’t already breaking dozens of them.
Because people facing deportation aren’t billionaire donors, so the law doesn’t work for them
Laws don’t matter. The government is breaking laws left, right and centre.
Because Congress doesn’t care about the well-being of those people. Why else would this nuance be inserted into the law?
To the current constitution-violating republican administration, none of this matters and the cruelty is part of it. That said, let’s play a game:
- what is the country of someone who grew up in the US, possibly speaking only English?
- what happens if the country is inaccessible for some reason (countries occasionally collapse or close borders)
- what happens if the borders of the country change and the person’s hometown (or all their family) is now in country X instead of their country of birth Y
There are probably more weird edge cases that would need to be in any law as well.
Also, if someone claims asylum, international law explicitly forbids sending them back to their country (not that international law has any bearing whatsoever on this but y’know, add a layer on top)
Some people face persecution in their home country.
And take this scenario:
Someone from Country A travels to Country B and commits a crime, and then travels to Country C without permission.
Where should Country C deport this person to?
Congress recently passed a law that allows people to be deported without due process. They’re not trying to stop him…they’re actively helping him.
…what? I need a source for this, please. 😧
It’s called the “Laken Riley Act”, and it allows for the deportation of people who have simply been “charged” with a criminal offense. They don’t have to be tried or convicted…just officially accused.
There’s a lot wrong with sending everyone to El Salvador or Gitmo. But quite a few people who seek asylum are trying to escape a deadly situation in their own country. (Yes if they’re trying for asylum they’re not supposed to be deported without due process but that’s not stopping the Reich.)
Republicans don’t care.
I don’t know what the US congress is any more, but in other countries it’s because they really really want to expel someone and the deportee’s home country might say “no thanks, they’re your problem”.
Mainly because the law is working as intended. Also because you would have to define what “their own country” is. Think of DACA recipients, who in many cases don’t even speak the language of the place where they were born, have no cultural or family connections back there, is that “their own country” if the are more USian than anything? What tablet the opposite? naturalized Citizens who very much retain the cultural and heritage connections, at times even creating separate cultural enclaves.
It is almost as if “your own country” is a made up racist concept that gets wielded by power structures to keep people at each other’s throats.
Unfortunately for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he is from El Salvador and in 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador.
Right. That is why the Administration position on this has some merit which the courts need to defer to. As an El Salvadoran who is back in his home country, the US cannot compel his release. All the US can do is ask nicely.
But, they haven’t even done that. Which is why the courts are so pissed. They know all this, and they know that all the administration has to do is prove they asked, in good faith. They won’t even go that far. They did that performative thing where the El Salvadoran President said “We won’t send him back since he’s a criminal”, but the courts in the US don’t consider him a criminal.
There is no better definition of “contempt of court” then what the US is doing right now.
I know you’re not defending the administration, but I wouldn’t consider the administration’s position to have any merit. They sent him to the prison and are paying for him to be imprisoned there. Giving them an inch of credibility on technicalities just means they’ll continue to do what they’re doing.
But that’s the Court’s job, to look at all the technicalities. The Administration sent him there “erroneously”, but since he is there now neither US courts nor the administration can compel his release. The Courts need to acknowledge that, while also acknowledging that the Administration likely did it this way on purpose, and the whole “administrative error” thing is a crock of shit. But they can’t come out and say that. And that gives Trump a wedge to split the whole thing apart.
Fascists are good at using the fact that their opponents need to uphold the law against them.
Fascists are good at using the fact that their opponents need to uphold the law against them.
Your comment is correct as much as I hate it. But to the quoted portion, their opponents don’t need to. They choose to. And it drives me insane that they think that we can operate within the system the fascists are actively ignoring to fix this. The “normal way” things are done is gone, it’s time to stand firm and take action.
Well, justice is supposed to be blind, isn’t it? It’s supposed to deal with everything in a neutral manner. The Court is not supposed to pick sides, and they must operate within the system, because their legitimacy comes from it.
Other institutions may have more flexibility…
I agree, but courts have been partisan for a while. See judge Cannon’s handling of Trumps documents case and the supreme Courts handling of his freaking insurrection.
I understand the way things are supposed to be. But it’s not the way they are. Courts are going to have to decide which side of history they are on.
Because the cruelty of it is the entire point. People still like to imagine those in power have some sort of misguided moral compass or reasoning. They do not. They are pure, unadulterated evil.
Back in the day, they told Lord Byron that there was a rule against people having dogs at his college.
There wasn’t a rule against having a bear, so he got one of those.
