From what research I've seen, the phrasing here should be that non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US citizen children with them. The children themselves were not deported.
This in no way excuses any of the other issues like not allowing contact with legal advocates / 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?
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.
Yes, and that was with Obama and 'children in cages'.
Trump is only turning the screws that were firmly installed by all previous presidents and congresses. The only real shock to this immigration action is the blitzkrieg of immediacy, horror, and flaunting violating court orders.
Courts don't have police to enforce judgements. The executive branch does. Hard to enforce finger-wagging. (And well, hello arrested judge day yesterday)
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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
If the mother is not a us citizen is she entitled to counsel? Or entitled to anything else? Curious to know to what parts of US law apply to non citizens and what parts do not.
In noncriminal matters such as deportations, there's no right to counsel at public expense. The broader rights to due process of law and habeas corpus have generally been held by the courts to apply to immigration detention and deportation, and people are certainly free to hire counsel at their own expense in such proceedings.
It gets tricky when a deportation is completed before a court can hear the case. Attempting to prevent a detainee from communicating their ___location and situation to someone who could bring a legal action on their behalf doesn't appear to be explicitly illegal, but it's certainly an attempt to subvert due process and probably ought to be illegal.
It’s interesting how the administration always talks about these people being here illegally and that they’re all criminals but then leverages the non-criminal aspect of the proceedings to their advantage.
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.
> phrasing here should be that non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US citizen children with them. The children themselves were not deported
This is what ICE alleges. They're a uniquely uncredible witness among government agencies [1][2].
A judge found the father's allegations worthy of meriting "strong suspicion that the Government just deported a
U.S. citizen with no meaningful process," an act which is itself illegal [3]. That is far more credible.
The actions by ICE in this and other cases are beyond defensible. If they have a case, let it be heard in open court with adequate counsel. Stop playing the silly reindeer games with people's lives.
That would be one way to make America great again.
A post elsewhere about the details said ICE found the two-year old was unable to 'describe her status in full, intelligible sentences', so deported, even though her father (not deported and not consenting to his child's expulsion) wanted her left with him.
From my experience with two-tear olds, I guess ICE was technically correct.
The father explicitly did not want the child deported with the mother, had informed ICE of that, and initiated legal proceedings to that effect [1].
The mother and US citizen child were held largely incommunicado. They were not given access to a lawyer, and communication with the father was monitored, and upon the father attempting to give them the phone number for an attorney the phone was taken from the mother. Then promptly put on a flight out of the country
When a judge attempted to contact the mother, while the mother and child were still in US custody: The US did not respond for an hour presumably so that it could remove the mother and child from US custody prior to responding.
> The Government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her. But the Court doesn’t know that. [2]
And that's a quote from the Trump appointed very Trump leaning [3] judge.
All actual evidence we have here is that the child was intentionally deported (expelled?) against the parents wishes. Certainly against one of the parents wishes.
Note that it's advised for a single parent traveling internationally with their children to carry an letter from the other parent granting permission, because it may otherwise be interpreted as an attempt at international kidnapping and you may be prevented from traveling. The US government itself says this: https://www.usa.gov/travel-documents-children
Yet here they are deliberately moving a child internationally against the express wishes of at least one of the parents.
Actually what happened in the US court here is the US court attempted to intercede while the mother and child were still in US custody and ICE ignored the court until they had successfully removed the mother and child from US custody. As a result the court never got to learn the mothers wishes at all.
> Fair or not, that’s what happens in the US courts.
That's also not actually true. Mothers tend to get custody because both parties are more likely to agree to give them custody (or the father is more likely to cede custody).
If it comes to an actual legal battle, fathers are actually more likely to win custody than mothers.
Oh wow, what a choice! Imagine, having a gun to your head and saying "but i had a choice!" In no way can you say that these people, given no legal advocates, chose to bring their children, or at least freely chose.
Being eventually forced to decide whether to leave your child behind or take them with you out of the USA is a direct consequence of the choice to illegally enter the country.
Are you suggesting we never deport parents under any circumstance? Having a citizen child is not some get-out-deportation-free card.
No one is saying parents cannot be deported. Rather that ICE clearly engineered the circumstances to ensure the child and mother were deported without any practical opportunity for the child to stay.
> Entering the United States illegally is not classified as a civil offense; it is a criminal offense. Under U.S. law, specifically under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, unauthorized entry into the country is considered a misdemeanor. The specific statute is 8 U.S.C. § 1325
Conscription was, and probably still is in places around the world, a consequence of illegal entry or for a number of different offenses. It isn't here in the United States so I'm not sure what your point is.
Actually yeah, I think having a minor citizen child should probably automatically make you a citizen, or at the very least a legal permanent resident (but that's stupid, let's just stick to citizen).
Did a judge rule on this alleged "illegally"? Elon Musk also entered the country illegally to work by pretending to be a student, and somehow he got given the keys to the treasury.
No, that's a step down a terrible return to pre-Civil War policy. We should be actively fighting against enslavement and for due process, not throwing our hands up and saying "well, guess we can't [bring them back from El Salvador, have a sane policy with respect to families, have people's rights to citizenship and legal residence respected]".
The habeas petition for VMS (the two year old) indicates the father (who was not detained at the time of the filing) transferred provisional custody rights to a US citizen relative, and that communications with the mother (who was removed along with their US citizen child) were cut off when he tried to share their lawyers contact info
One thing I don’t understand is how this is even a choice the parents have the legal right to make, assuming their US citizen children do not have passports (I don’t know if the answer to that is publicly known). Can a child legally be taken out of the country without a passport and some kind of verifications?
That’s a strawman argument that I would never advocate, and completely ignores my question.
Alternatives include arranging legal custody for the child and to stay in the US with a relative (as one family was attempting), or finding a legal way for them to leave the country with their parents.
Instead, it seems the government is rushing to illegally remove these children before the courts can intervene
Delay deporting the non-citizen parent at least until the citizen children have reasonable accomodations to remain in the country? "The plan" isn't sacred. Humans rights are sacred.
The government has a duty to protect its citizens. So in this case, that would mean finding suitable childcare for the citizen child before making them an orphan.
Birthright citizenship is explicitly included in the 14’th amendment of the US constitution. Technically the constitution could be amended again. But if we include wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.
> But if we include wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.
You're this <> close from becoming a dictatorship, things could become very silly regardless.
If anything, I'd say Trump is just a silly Sulla. Sulla was somewhat benevolent, he retired. But he paved the way for Caesar and Augustus (people who really meant business, especially Augustus).
I mean, I’m worried about the trajectory of the country generally. But, we need to be able to talk about the actual laws and process (this assumes we still have laws and processes).
If the country turns into a dictatorship, then it is just rule by dictatorial fiat. But in that case this whole conversation is sort of pointless because we wouldn’t have democracy and our opinions about how things should be run wouldn’t matter anymore.
No. What the law says is that birthright citizenship does not apply to those *not* subject to US law. Foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity. It's not the foreign power that matters, it's the lack of the US power.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
All people in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US (other than some very unusual situation like diplomats and, in the past, some Native American tribes).
Can someone who down voted this comment please explain why? Is this because you do not agree with his general stance or because it simplifies and doesn't contribute to the debate?
“End Jus Soli” would require a constitutional amendment and would be universally opposed by at least one party. So, it is bringing the conversation in the direction of ridiculous out-there topics.
And it can cause headaches with people being stateless because neither the country of their parents nor the country of their birth recognizes them. And that's something that's normally prohibited by treaty: you can't take an action that will render someone stateless.
Is that really so? It seems odd because not every country has soil-based birthright citizenship. So, there must be some combinations that will result in a stateless person (although I would expect that this is an exceptional case that is just handled as an exception).
Where? I haven't really heard of many cases like this. Usually the most abuse that happens is someone "forgetting" their citizenship and trying to gain asylum, because they know they can't get citizenship otherwise, anyway.
No, I'm saying that the US government should be able to change the constitution, if its citizens want it. Apparently about 50% of the US population is rabidly anti-immigration.
All this status quo is doing is creating all sort of gray area cruelty. Just be open about it, become anti-immigration, but make it fair. The US is basically the only developed Western country that I know of where you don't even have fixed time frame to become a citizen. In the EU + CANZUK if you live lawfully in a country you become a citizen in N years. The N is well known ahead of time.
Why? Why should someone be a citizen because they were born in a specific country? With jus sanguinis things are much clearer: one of your parents is a citizen, you're a citizen. Your kids are citizens. In perpetuity.
Jus solis is a bit like right of way at American intersections: the person that's been there the longest goes first. Whaaaaaa? What if two cars arrive at the same time? What if 4 arrive at roughly at the same time? What is people can't agree who arrived first? A lot of the rest of the world gives way to the car coming from the right. Which is obvious and basically non-negotiable.
Not sure who downvoted, but simply ending jus solis because authoritarians want to make people's lives miserable is an extreme position with an awful BATNA.
The same happens to US citizens who have/bear children in other countries. Moreover some will do much as assume the children do not have local citizenship but US citizenship despite being born in that non-US country.
I've known children of US citizens who were presumed Americans though having been born in a south American country. Government kicked them all out for being personae non grata Americans --children not excepted.
That’s because, for a while, the USA has been seen as the main exponent (although obviously not the only one) of western ideals such as freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. So yeah it’s logical that people would expect that the “leader of the free world” does not act like some other random country.
Rather a different interpretation of the XIV. It was intended for slaves and the children of slaves (there were few non-British foreigners in the US) at the time. However, over time, it was interpreted to mean anyone not only the descendants of slaves/ex-slaves). That could very well be re-interpreted.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you interpret it?
The entire interpretation of that amendment turns on this phrase:
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
And if you go back and read what the drafters of that amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress, they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS may have a different interpretation than "anyone who happens to be born across this line on the map is a US citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof".
Having read the Senate debate on the amendment to grant citizenship to what would become the 14th amendment, I can't disagree more.
They were absolutely aware that is what it. Indeed, they stated it outright:
> The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that
they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to
accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
- Senator John Conness (R-CA), May 29, 1866 during Senate debates on citizenship amendment introduced by Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI)
The only real change came when they worried that citizenship would be extended to Indians in tribes we had treaties saying we wouldn't do just that leading to a change that excluded them.
Conness wasn't an author of the amendment, and was an immigration advocate as part of a Machiavellian strategy to lock out the Democrats in Reconstruction-era America. I agree with you, though, there certainly were other opinions on what those words meant, and the actual author doesn't do himself any favors by trying to tread right on the line to ensure the amendment passed. In any case, SCOTUS will eventually weigh in, and probably just settle the question, at least for now. It's a pity that the argument is about just the one phrase, because the arguments about the wisdom of Jus Soli policies are much more interesting.
Do you have more info about what they said they meant?
Certainly that clause has weight. It excludes diplomats, members of occupying armies, and members of Native tribes. But it seems strange to apply it to others, unless you’re also going to say that they have immunity from our laws as well.
It's not that they have "immunity", it's about whether the US Government has jurisdiction over them, meaning they can conscript them in time of war, collect taxes and so on, and that there isn't another foreign power that can do or already does this.
Howard, who introduced the Amendment, said this[1]:
>This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
>Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.
Doubly funny that he added a line in that speech where he thinks all ambiguity is gone.
Thanks. Dude couldn’t even make his own statements unambiguous. And he can’t seem to make up his mind about whether the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause refers to the child or the parents.
People born in the Germany made up about 3.5% of the US population (1.11 million) in 1860. While they were one of the largest groups, many states/territories had large percentages of other non-British people like California, where 9% of the population was born in China. Then you have territories like New Mexico where most of the population had been born in Mexico.
Regardless, the debates for the 14th Amendment make it absolutely clear they understood they understood a child born to, say, Chinese parents in the US would get citizenship.
Well then it's a good thing historical context matters more than numerical consensus when analyzing why the majority of two continents settled by Europeans in the last 500 years nearly all opted for one broad form of conferring citizenship over another. If you were to redact the name of all 195 countries, but list ten facts about them and draw random names, you could accurately predict which ones will have birthright citizenship just by looking at other properties.
I don't think the lack of documentation is a barrier to deportation. All that matters is that the country they are being deported to agrees to take them. But this has been rather routinely violated by ICE in the past--they are a totally criminal organization. (They would deport people by shoving them into Mexico--never mind if they are actually Mexican or not.)
> From what research I've seen, the phrasing here should be that non-citizens were deported and chose to bring their US citizen children with them. The children themselves were not deported.
That seems deliberately Orwellian. What's the "not deported" scenario you're imagining? Literally abandoning your child in a jail somewhere?!
It's not like these folks are in hotels, or have access to phones or family.
I mean, yikes. Is that really what we've come to in the discourse on this site? Putting scare quotes around "deported" to pretend that it's only "other issues" that are problems?
Not ironically, yes, that's where we are. I remember when we would say such things about a school of children being gunned down. "Really?? That's where we are now as a society? How did we let this happen?"
We let it happen by not saying "enough" when the last thing happened. If a school of kids gets gunned down and a society lets that slide, that society becomes one more tolerant of violence against children. We said we were powerless to stop that, so here we are now, bringing violence against children as a matter of federal policy.
Honest question, does it have to be done this way? Or could they wait maybe 2 extra hours until the child was safe? It seems to me that they are cowards who prey on those weaker than them and are too afraid to face those of their “own size”.
You’re taking the rest of the world hostage with the child.
The crime was that she was allowed here in the first place, whether by the people who made her believe it was possible, or by her breaking the laws as the act of entry in the country.
> The only Orwellian thing is she was lied to by Democrats that she could lead a safe life in the US. That’s on you.
This cannot be overstated. I wish I had a thousand up votes to give you. Democrats made a promise they knew would never hold up just for the votes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and these people who were lied to by Democrats are the ones paying the price.
It’s OK for a citizen to lose their rights if a political party exists that espouses views you don’t agree with and it’s possible someone related to that citizen may (or may not) have listened to those views?
I think the steelman version would be that the rights in question shouldn't exist. In that world view, the birthright citizenship granted by the 14th amendment is an inconvenience to be worked around; and the business here about forcing a "choice"[1] where the parents will "deport" their own citizen children is in fact the desired policy result and not a humanitarian horror.
[1] Which of course isn't one, thus the Orwellian point upthread.
The tired trope of blaming all bad Republican actions on Democrats because they "let it happen" is lame.
No, the democrats are not secretly worse because they're watching evil happen. The people doing the evil are worse, actually. That's just how that works.
What promise was that, exactly? Do you have a quote?
If not, and you mean “promise by inaction”, then could we say then that Trump made a promise to racists, neo-nazis, crypto criminals, the Russian government, etc?
This is not accurate, though I have found that people who steep in rightwing propaganda tend to repeat these type of talking points.
The Rawlsian veil ethic applies here.
EDIT: RE - the knee-jerk downvotes. I appreciate that people pointing out authoritarianism can be painful if you are embracing it. Cognitive dissonance is never a fun thing to work through, and having done it a few times I sympathize with the struggles you face or may be facing.
I'm not going to downvote you. But Rawls never applies. Rawls is a big scam. At root, it is relativism wrapped up in the august raiment of state-of-nature social contract theory, whatever his protests to the contrary; and the relativism in this case is what "feels right" to him and his fancy neighbors living in Cambridge.
Rawls is just an extension of the golden rule, and anyone who is against treating others how they themselves would wish to be treated is probably someone who shouldn't have authority over others.
"Two Undocumented Families and Their U.S.-Born Accomplices Deported by ICE"
And the following year, you won't need to include the undocumented families anymore. (And they won't be telling anyone about the citizens who were disappeared, so this headline won't get printed anyway and its formulation doesn't matter.)
So the US born children get to come back of their own accord, right? We're going to afford them the rights that every citizen of and person in this country has, like due process, right? We haven't forgotten the promise of the US to the world, to respect rights even when doing things people don't like, right?
This is less accurate. It erases the US citizenship of the children by being born here with the 14th Amendment, and subtly implies that they AREN'T citizens and are just "U.S.-Born" as if the 14th Amendment didn't apply (like Trump wants).
This has literally been declared not the case by the president, and being contested in court, and held as true by a significant percentage of the population. It’s not semantics - it’s become a point of national disagreement.
It also leaves out all mention of process. The issue here isn’t that the parents are choosing to bring their citizen children with them but that they’re being denied all ability to leave their citizen children with their citizen parent. This is the crux of the actual issue here.
It’s not the case already for foreign diplomats on US soil. If the Russian ambassador’s wife gives birth at a US hospital while visiting the embassy, the child does not get citizenship.
Mark my words, Trump is going to win that court case. It’s not far fetched at all to interpret “*
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*” to mean people that have legally entered the country.
All people in the United States other than consular and other rare carve outs are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government. Otherwise the government would have no ability to enforce its law on them. I think while you may be right due to political aspects of the Supreme Courts loyalties, it’s hard to find a reading where “jurisdiction” means “parents are citizens a-priori.” There’s no discussion of the parents, just that they’re subject to the laws of the United States, and citizenship and jurisdiction of the United States are concepts that have no intersection.
Notably, Trump's order also applies to people who entered the country legally. Why'd they include that if they think that only people who entered illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
And it sure seems like the opinion of legal professionals is that it is far fetched.
It's not a matter of rationality and logic. The executive believes the 14th amendment only applies to former slaves. They don't believe it's operable in the 21st century and they don't believe it applies to foreign nationals. They call such children "anchor babies". Courts don't agree with that, but the executive also believes courts don't have the right to limit the executive when it comes to matters of immigration.
I can understand why this level of pedantry is annoying but we are not dealing with good faith arguments here. They are power plays.
> "U.S Born" == "U.S Citizenship" would be the default assumption of any rational, thinking person
Not in trump’s america, not if they have their way, and this nonsense wordplay is part of it. Look at the statements around a third term; those arent jokes
"U.S. Born" and "U.S. Citizen" are the same number of words though, so it just seems like you're deliberately obfuscating. Maybe a better headline would be "Two Undocumented Families and Their American Children Deported by ICE." That way we'd save a word and make it unambiguous: these children are Americans.
Less than half the population of the world live in birthright citizenship countries. Such countries as all of Eurasia except Pakistan, and all but a handful of African countries. Do those countries not have rational thinking people?
You're missing the point here. In the United States, the context of this discussion, birthright citizenship has been the law of the land for generations. It would be abnormal for someone in this context to think someone born in the US isn't a citizen. The right wing wants this to change, but it has not as of yet.
February 29th, 2027, the so called "Hacker News" is declared a criminal and illegal site. The wartime powers delegated to the Supreme President allow him to imprison domestic enemies and remove them. Gradus_ad is right in the middle of explaining the difference between "begging" and "panhandling" to the hobo he is harrassing, when disguised agents grab him off the street for commenting on a criminal site. He is whisked off to a correction facility in Hungary (it is now illegal for this publication to call them "gulags") and never heard from again. Luckily the agents who disappeared him say everything was handled legally!
The rule of law requires due process and following court orders.
Declaring a fake 'invasion' and implementing authoritarianism under the guise of emergency powers was already done in Rome, and decidedly is not the rule of law.
I sincerely hope people like you get sent to a Salvadoran torture gulag the next time you drive over the speed limit. Because we absolutely understand no circumstances can afford a breakdown in the rule of law.
I’m so tired of how when fascists operate in the open, the attempt to throw back their rhetoric to them is always perceived as “weak”, “beta”, and incompetent from the public at large. Feels like some SCP object of right wing reaction exists in this country.
There’s never any kind of “extreme” movement designed to stamp this shit out in the USA. It ends up being kids wearing red who have never done pushups or other hard exercise before, mixed with a healthy dose of spooks making absolutely sure that these organizations never gain any real power.
A whole lot of authoritarian bootlickers in this thread who are ready to sell out their countrymen to CECOT themselves deserve to spend some time in a torture prison like that - because there is nothing else in this world that will convince them of the utter inhumanity of such a place.
But you know, “so much for the tolerant left” and all that. Fuck this stupid, tyrannical, authoritarian, reality.
I seriously doubt you are of sufficient “in group” status to avoid the gulag.
I hope that it is never decided that you are a terrorist/enemy combatant/whatever and shipped off without due process to an American concentration camp. (Auschvits wasn’t in Germany either).
Oh, you are a citizen? “Home Grown” so to speak? Trump explicitly said that he needs five more concentration camps in El Salvador just for people like you.
This in no way excuses any of the other issues like not allowing contact with legal advocates / attorneys.