Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,180
845
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You have already been provided with information showing that asylees are protected. Now get past this endless, meandering deflection.

When you said, "you have to prove a crime", you didn't apply that to ordinary people-- because here you are defending the government for bypassing due process and incarcerating people without charge or evidence.
There's not a single news story saying what you are claiming.

...Dude. These were people who were living here legally (literally what "legal resident" means: "living here legally"), and then were abducted and deported on false or specious pretenses and without due process. Hell, in at least one case Ice abducted and unilaterally deported them while they were driving to the court case for the incident that Ice was using as justification.

In another, the student visa of Dogukan Gunaydin was just revoked on the pretext of a DUI that he got in 2023 . Notably, not only was he not afforded the opportunity to either leave voluntarily or challenge the revocation before he was arrested by immigration agents (or even notice), records show that his visa wasn't revoked until seven hours after he was taken into custody.

Rümeysa Öztürk was similarly abducted from campus in Massachusetts in apparent retaliation for an Op-ed she had written for her school newspaper last year (denouncing Netanyahu's campaign). And then when the courts warned Ice not to remove her from Massachusetts without notice, they shipped her to Louisiana without notifying the court, her counsel, or even the Department of Justice counsel, and are now insisting that judge cannot hear the case because they moved her to Louisiana. She resides here legally on a student visa, and has not been charged with any crime. Even so, the US government is insisting that since it defied the order and moved her to Louisiana, the Massachusetts courts have no jurisdiction, that the case against her detainment should be dismissed, and that she should be deported immediately.

Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident was taken from his apartment on March 8. The agents said the State Department had revoked his student visa...until it was pointed out to them that he had a green card, at which point they changed tunes and said that had been revoked instead. Once again, he was immediately shipped to Louisiana pending immediate deportation. He has not been officially charged with any crime, nor to have engaged in any activity prohibited to US citizens, nor has his green card been revoked.

It's become a set of recurring themes in these cases is not only that Ice is consistently 1) trying to blitz through deportation and bypass due process (notably including the immigration hearing that they are entitled to) in what amounts to playing a jurisdictional shell game to prevent the detainees from mounting a legal defense before they're deported, 2) engaging in brazen double-speak regarding the people they're detaining, treating them as high-profile criminals (even incarcerating them as such in maximum security prisons) and describing them as such to the general populace, while pointedly refusing to actually charge them with a crime so as to deny them a means to meaningfully dispute the accusation, and 3) after rushing them out of the country before giving them the due process that they are entitled to under law, they've been throwing up their hands and going "whoops! Already done! Nothing we can do about it now! Sorry, not sorry! Get over it! You have no right to question our actions!" when the courts finally catch up and determine that their accusations were baseless and the actions based upon them lawless.

Seriously, the sheer audacity of it is terrifying. They're literally arguing that since the people they've unlawfully deported have already been delivered to the foreign prison that they are specifically paying to incarcerate these people at their behest - on pretenses that they themselves have acknowledged as false, no less - that the US government no longer has the power to do anything about it. Which is genuinely horseshit and doesn't even withstand perfunctory scrutiny even. Once again, these people are not in that prison because El Salvador wants them there, but because Trump is having the US pay El Salvador to put them there.

Even so, they go a step further and declare that - because they rushed them into their outsourced prison - any court case against that lawless action should be dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. That they should just treat it as a done deal, a fait accompli, and not worth even trying to correct the circumstance, hold the responsible parties accountable (parties whom, I might add, have been making it clear that they are quite unrepentant and explicitly intend to keep operating this way), or fix the procedures to make sure that it doesn't happen again. And indeed, they argue that their actions being subjected to legal scrutiny is inexcusable because it "undermines the president's constitutional authority to address national security threats". They are literally arguing that they shouldn't be accountable to the law because red tape would be inconvenient.

Here's a fun little news flash. Three weeks ago, 238 Venezuelan immigrants were deported straight to a maximum prison in El Salvador, known as CECOT (perhaps you've heard of it). They have been denied contact with both their families and legal representation. Some of them - such as Andry Hernandez Romero - were seeking asylum through official channels and were scheduled to have their cases heard in the extremely near future (in Romero's case, the very next day), when Ice just up and arrested them and ultimately deported them to prison CECOT on what's broadly very specious and unconvincing reasoning. Want to know the official (and only) reason given to the court for why Romero was treated as de-facto guilty and warranting a prison sentence without trial, chance to appeal the government's claim, and why the courts shouldn't even bother thinking about contesting it? He had tattoos with crowns on them (crowns over the words "mom" and "dad"). These were used to simply assert that he must be part of Tren de Aragua and therefore a security threat worth throwing in a maximum security prison. That conclusion was not the result of a trial or the judicial process, it was ICE's justification for using the Alien Enemies Act to bypass a trial or court ruling. Yeah, the case is that weak. And it bears more than a passing resemblance to another case in which they declared someone to clearly be part of the same gang because they were wearing Chicago Bulls paraphernalia (no, seriously).

60 Minutes did some digging, checking the internal documents, domestic court filings, and international court filings. And you want to know something interesting? They could not find any criminal records for 75% of the 238 Venezuelans that were shipped to CECOT. And I don't mean that they weren't sure whether they existed (that was only true for 3%, with only the remaining 22% having confirmed criminal records, most of which consist solely of minor offenses), I mean that 75% simply don't have a criminal record and have never been convicted of a crime. Worse still, you know what the Trump administration's response was? That a lack of criminal record didn't prove that they weren't in a gang or not dangerous. That many without criminal records "are actually terrorists, human rights abusers, gangsters, and more; they just don't have a rap sheet in the U.S." Forget our foundational legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty". That's straight up "guilty just because we say so. End of discussion."

They are literally just unilaterally declaring them guilty and throwing them in prison without even pressing charges - much less prosecuting or convicting them - and explicitly don't care that their claim is unsupported by the evidence. Fuck's sake, they even invoked the State Secrets Privilege to argue that the courts had no right to investigate, much less dispute, their presumption of guilt! That's an egregious violation of the fundamental legal principle of both due process and innocent until proven guilty. To say this is "not okay" is an extreme understatement.

But let's be completely honest here. You've made it more than clear that you don't care about any of that. You clearly aren't making even the slightest effort to understand or even learn about the situation. You only care that your preconceptions are being contradicted, and are digging your feet in out of nothing more than sheer obstinacy, to the point of even trying to turn the issue into a semantic argument over the exact verbage used to avoid talking about the substance of the issues that you had already decided to dismiss out of hand. It's not that you have reason for your beliefs, it's that you feel entitled to them being true and - as you've shown so many times before - genuinely lack the emotional maturity to accept correction.

You aren't trying to keep abreast of current events or make sure that you have an informed opinion. You're just taking your preconceptions as a given and looking for soundbites that will give you a pretext to stop looking further on the presumption that finding that soundbite means your prejudices have been validated. And you have consistently stubbornly insisted on that well past the point of reason even as people have repeatedly and at length explained to you that the sources you pull those soundbites from don't support the conclusions you are pushing with them. And usually to the tune of simply repeating your assertion ad nauseum and simply refusing to accept any explanation purely because it doesn't align with that same assertion.

You're not providing an informed or well-reasoned perspective, you're just acting like a spoiled brat who's getting his hackles up as a matter of principle simply because you're offended that somebody told you 'no, that's wrong'. Fuck's sake, you've consistently demonstrated that you can't even be bothered to read your own sources through to completion, much less take the time to verify that you understand them. On several occasions, you've even spent months falsely insisting that the source validates your conclusion while dismissing its own data and analysis as ridiculous and impossible when people start quoting it back to you as part of their explanation that your source did not make the conclusions you attributed to it, and that the soundbite you were invoking had been removed from necessary context.

It's never been about the truth for you, just placating your damn overinflated ego by telling yourself that you can't have been wrong.

So let me be perfectly direct here: If you can't be bothered to do your damn homework and insist instead on only declaring that your personal prejudices and incredulity must be true (which is practically all you ever seem to do), then you have nothing to add to the topic and shouldn't bother contributing to it.
I know there's some individual cases like Khalil that shouldn't have happened and have said that's bad. I don't know what else ya'll what me to do. But this claim that large swaths of protected immigrants are being deported, I haven't seen anything about that being claimed by any news story.

The news misleads people with stories like this about Abrego Garcia who indeed already had due process and was found to be a gang member via a court of law. And guess what, the vast majority of people in the US would find deporting Abrego Garcia when told all the facts is perfectly fine. You know, democracy.


When you have the news always misleading people (regardless of what side you're on), you have to take such things with a grain a salt. Again, there has not been a story saying these 100 people or these 1,000 people were protected and ICE literally had no business deporting them. You guys are putting up these claims, not me. It's not on me to disprove your claim, it's on you to prove it. This line from the article you posted aligns with pretty much what I'm saying. If these people were protected why does it matter if the government ignored this judge's order when what they did (regardless of said judge's order) was already massively illegal? That would be the story if that was the case, but it's not the story.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is weighing whether the government defied his order to turn around planes carrying migrants after he blocked deportations of people alleged to be gang members without due process.

I don't make my religion politics like so many people do nowadays. I don't watch/read news during my actual free time outside of downtime at work, I have better things to do outside of work. I'm not the one just believing articles that my side puts out like so many people here like believing an article that says seeds oils are healthier than butter just because someone you don't like (RFK Jr) is against seed oils and he must be wrong.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,517
976
118
Country
USA
If ICE decide they want you out, they can arbitrarily say your clothes are TDA-affiliated, and you're halfway there.
Whatever, he's absolutely clear that the problem is vague and inaccurate criteria resulting in people being wrongfully deported.

He's likewise reasonable to point out that the US authorities attempting to obstruct anyone examining and correcting potential errors seems outrageous.
Agema, I recommend paying more attention before jumping to someone's defense. Silvanus has not been ambiguous. He does not think these are errors caused by vague criteria, he thinks the criteria are intentionally vague to be able to deport whomever they want. He does not think the deportations of non-gang members are errors, he thinks they are the intended outcome.
You are defending the intentional incarceration of people who followed every legal procedure and committed no infraction. And you know this.
One can follow every legal procedure and still not be allowed to reside in a foreign nation. And you know this.
Sure. But does this mean fair and reasonable process isn't important?
A fair and reasonable process is preferable all else being equal, but not all else is ever equal. If giving each individual fair consideration leads to millions from around the globe flooding the border, the end result broadly becomes neither fair nor reasonable. It's like if 1 person needs $5, it's reasonable to help them, but if the result is 1000 people asking for money, you can't reasonably help them equally.
The principle that, practically, not everyone can experience unique treatment doesn't reasonably extend to excusing incompetent, unjust, disproportionate actions. So for instance, if the USA has an illegal immigration problem, how does this justify mistreating legal immigrants?
I would agree it does not justify mistreatment of legal immigrants, but we would have disagreement on some of the terms involved. Is revoking a visa mistreatment? I'd say not. Is someone who arrived illegally, was arrested, ordered out of the country, and then allowed to stay on temporary protected status a legal immigrant? You might say yes, I'm not inclined to think so. The US's generosity over the years should not be used to impose obligations that would have otherwise not even been considered. It's not as though other nations are withholding deportations to El Salvador or Venezuela.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,801
6,653
118
Country
United Kingdom
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,517
976
118
Country
USA
The policing process in the US is broken, so should we go straight to Judge Dredd?
The policing process is less than perfect at its goals, but it isn't actively encouraging more crime.

Also, nothing they are doing right now is equivalent to Judge Dredd mode.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,801
6,653
118
Country
United Kingdom
Agema, I recommend paying more attention before jumping to someone's defense. Silvanus has not been ambiguous. He does not think these are errors caused by vague criteria, he thinks the criteria are intentionally vague to be able to deport whomever they want. He does not think the deportations of non-gang members are errors, he thinks they are the intended outcome.
I honestly cannot see what inconsistency you think you're seeing here.

One can follow every legal procedure and still not be allowed to reside in a foreign nation. And you know this.
Yes. In which situations, the law will change, and those affected will be informed and told to leave. A timeline for departure & a next step (if timeline isn't met) is laid out.

But that's not what happened, is it? Nothing legally changed in their status, or in what their status afforded them. Nobody was informed. The government simply decided that their status didn't apply now, and that without a moment's notice, a subset of those who had it would be shipped to maximum security prison.

Say for yourself. "One can follow every legal procedure and still not be allowed to reside in their birth nation", is equally true. So as a hypothetical, imagine you were swept up, because an agent decided the Nike logo on your trainers was evocative of a Venezuelan gang. Tell me whether you'd consider this unreasonable, and-- crucially-- also tell me why, and whether it has anything to do with the fact you followed every rule and committed no infraction.

The policing process is less than perfect at its goals, but it isn't actively encouraging more crime.
It is, in fact, committing crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,517
976
118
Country
USA
I honestly cannot see what inconsistency you think you're seeing here.
Agema thinks you see this as the administration making mistakes. He thinks that when I argue against your position that it is deliberate that I am creating a straw man.
Say for yourself. "One can follow every legal procedure and still not be allowed to reside in their birth nation", is equally true. So as a hypothetical, imagine you were swept up, because an agent decided the Nike logo on your trainers was evocative of a Venezuelan gang. Tell me whether you'd consider this unreasonable, and-- crucially-- also tell me why, and whether it has anything to do with the fact you followed every rule and committed no infraction.
This is a hypothetical for me, but hardly a hypothetical overall. American citizens have been swept up into foreign prison systems a bunch of times, often for little to no wrongdoing, and the best recourse is to petition their own government to have them sent home. If Venezuela wants their people back from El Salvador, they are welcome to negotiate it.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,738
3,306
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Agema, I recommend paying more attention before jumping to someone's defense. Silvanus has not been ambiguous. He does not think these are errors caused by vague criteria, he thinks the criteria are intentionally vague to be able to deport whomever they want. He does not think the deportations of non-gang members are errors, he thinks they are the intended outcome.

One can follow every legal procedure and still not be allowed to reside in a foreign nation. And you know this.

A fair and reasonable process is preferable all else being equal, but not all else is ever equal. If giving each individual fair consideration leads to millions from around the globe flooding the border, the end result broadly becomes neither fair nor reasonable. It's like if 1 person needs $5, it's reasonable to help them, but if the result is 1000 people asking for money, you can't reasonably help them equally.

I would agree it does not justify mistreatment of legal immigrants, but we would have disagreement on some of the terms involved. Is revoking a visa mistreatment? I'd say not. Is someone who arrived illegally, was arrested, ordered out of the country, and then allowed to stay on temporary protected status a legal immigrant? You might say yes, I'm not inclined to think so. The US's generosity over the years should not be used to impose obligations that would have otherwise not even been considered. It's not as though other nations are withholding deportations to El Salvador or Venezuela.
You keep referring to this as "deportation." That's not what it is. They aren't just being ejected from the US, they are being forced into a foreign prison. People who have not been shown to have committed any crime, who have not been charged with anything much less convicted of any wrongdoing have been rounded up and unceremoniously dumped into a foreign prison without due process, without sentencing, with no way to contact their families or get legal representation.

I'm fine with illegal immigrants being deported. I'm not ok with innocent people being renditioned to a foreign prison when they haven't been found guilty of any crime that would justify imprisonment.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,206
909
118
Country
United States

This is why, despite voting for the Dems, I will never go to a protest. Because the same people who repost stuff like this are the same ones at the protests. My parents worked blue collar, and a few blue collar people at a job I worked at didn't like me, but to have such disdain for the American manufacturing worker by the liberals, progressives, and internationalists is galling. You're not better just because you were lucky enough to be born near a coast where most of the trade in the world ends up.

And it's weird in America, there are lots of those going the other way. Reddit blue-collar skilled workers are attacking computer programmers for some reason on Reddit. You idiots, that's what Russia and China want us to do.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,801
6,653
118
Country
United Kingdom
Agema thinks you see this as the administration making mistakes. He thinks that when I argue against your position that it is deliberate that I am creating a straw man.
This is so tenuous. Yes, you did strawman me-- I never said they were intentionally targeting innocent people, you made that up. What they did was create a set of criteria that were so nebulous and inaccurate that innocent asylees could be swept up and imprisoned. They did that intentionally.

The targeted group isn't "innocent people". The targeted group is Venezuelan asylum seekers and other immigrants, the innocence and legal status of whom are ultimately quite unimportant to the criteria by which they were included. Agema's description of my position-- "the problem is vague and inaccurate criteria resulting in people being wrongfully deported" -- is pretty accurate. Yours isn't.

This is a hypothetical for me, but hardly a hypothetical overall. American citizens have been swept up into foreign prison systems a bunch of times, often for little to no wrongdoing, and the best recourse is to petition their own government to have them sent home. If Venezuela wants their people back from El Salvador, they are welcome to negotiate it.
I'm aware. I want you to tell me you'd be just as blasé about your own legal status and rights if it happened to you. If the government decided that your legal status was revoked, because a law enforcement officer believed your clothing resembled some criminal gang you've never heard of-- and without any due process, legal representation, or even notice given, you were carted off to maximum security. Tell me you wouldn't consider that an infringement or overstep, and you'd happily just tell me that "unfair things happen to people sometimes, hey ho".
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,517
976
118
Country
USA
This is so tenuous. Yes, you did strawman me-- I never said they were intentionally targeting innocent people, you made that up. What they did was create a set of criteria that were so nebulous and inaccurate that innocent asylees could be swept up and imprisoned. They did that intentionally.
That's not what I said. I said it was targeted and intentional. Presumably it was targeted at Venezuelan asylum seekers and TPS beneficiaries because the administration believes Venezuelans shouldn't be eligible.

It may have also been targeted at people who used CBP One because Biden introduced it, and Trump seems to derive pleasure from dismantling things Obama and Biden did.

The main point, though, is that this wasn't in error.
...
I'm aware. I want you to tell me you'd be just as blasé about your own legal status and rights if it happened to you. If the government decided that your legal status was revoked, because a law enforcement officer believed your clothing resembled some criminal gang you've never heard of-- and without any due process, legal representation, or even notice given, you were carted off to maximum security. Tell me you wouldn't consider that an infringement or overstep, and you'd happily just tell me that "unfair things happen to people sometimes, hey ho".
That is not a description of what's happening.

If I went to Canada to try to live there without Canada's permission, I'd be fully aware that I put my fate in their hands, whatever their decision. I don't get to regret it if things don't go my way, they don't owe me anything.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,180
845
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I implore you to use more brainpower than you're using now.

You might have to read the sources, rather than typing CTRL-F + "protect".
Where does it say anything about these people being protected in any news story? You gave an excerpt from the article that doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Either show proof or retract your claim.
 
Last edited:

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,270
455
88
Country
US
If I went to Canada to try to live there without Canada's permission, I'd be fully aware that I put my fate in their hands, whatever their decision. I don't get to regret it if things don't go my way, they don't owe me anything.
...and if you were otherwise legally in Canada, you agree that they can still pick you up and ship you off to a South American max sec prison at a whim?

What about if you are a full citizen, and not merely a legal resident (permanent or otherwise)? What's the acceptable amount of being arrested and held without charge or process?

Because we keep seeing "fun" cases like 54 year old man gets cuffed and thrown in a van, his phone and wallet confiscated and held for ten hours before someone actually looked in the wallet and saw proof he was a citizen and then released him. Note that technically citizens are not actually required to carry proof of citizenship on them so if he didn't happen to have that on his person at the time they essentially would have just vanished him.

DHS used to have an Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties meant specifically to deal with these kinds of problems, but it was shut down fairly recently because they “obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles.” In other words, by demanding some kind of due process and record keeping instead of merely grabbing people to vanish to a foreign max sec prison.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,517
976
118
Country
USA
...and if you were otherwise legally in Canada, you agree that they can still pick you up and ship you off to a South American max sec prison at a whim?

What about if you are a full citizen, and not merely a legal resident (permanent or otherwise)? What's the acceptable amount of being arrested and held without charge or process?
Would you like to waste all day pondering increasingly irrelevant hypotheticals? Being detained would stink, but so does being caught in traffic. The jump to "they are disappearing citizens" is rather absurd.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,801
6,653
118
Country
United Kingdom
I legitimately have no idea where you think the contradiction is, here. Are you hallucinating a contradiction between "Not intentionally targeting innocent people" and "targeting Venezuelan asylum seekers and TPS beneficiaries including/regardless of whether they're innocent & legal"?

That is not a description of what's happening.

If I went to Canada to try to live there without Canada's permission, I'd be fully aware that I put my fate in their hands, whatever their decision. I don't get to regret it if things don't go my way, they don't owe me anything.
With permission. With. People using the CBP One app followed the rules and were given permission to reside temporarily, and a legal status. Then without any change in that legal status, and without notice, the administration shipped them to maximum security prison (I fact I have to keep repeating since you keep referring to it as mere deportation).

To bring the analogy into line with what did actually happen: if you went to Canada, & got permission to be there, would you say the authorities would be perfectly in their rights to incarcerate you for a year, with no recourse to legal representation? "They don't owe you anything, your fate is in their hands" etc.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,801
6,653
118
Country
United Kingdom
Where does it say anything about these people being protected in any news story? You gave an excerpt from the article that doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Either show proof or retract your claim.
The extract shows they came via CBP One.

Users of CBP One have the status of asylum seekers.

As already explained to you here, asylum seekers & asylees have a legal resident status and protections.

Honestly though, this is a bit of a distraction, because the central point is that you're defending incarceration without a crime being proven or even charged. Which is hypocritical, given you previously whined that "a crime has to be proven" in order to hold the President responsible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian