ICE Deports 3 U.S. Citizen Children Held Incommunicado Prior to the Deportation (aclu.org)

Subdermal tracking implants then? Although I wouldn't put it past these drooling sadists to start cutting things out of their prisoners.

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.

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.

Is it really "deported" without a court ruling? I thought it was human trafficking?

You’re thinking of visa overstay (a civil offense). Unauthorized entry is a criminal misdemeanor. Re-entry after deportation rises to a felony.

Is it, though?

> 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

Such a society that chooses that has no respect for the rights of an individual.

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.

> The real solution to this is to end jus solis.

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]".

> it seems the government is rushing to illegally

That's the last 4 months really.

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.

But ideally we wouldn't be making them orphans.

End jus solis. Allow all current parents to stay.

There ya go, the humane solution to this.

They look for other relatives to take the children first.

Takes care, interesting choice of words there.

If by “only a few” you mean “almost every country in the Americas, plus some more.”

One of which is the US,and would require a constitutional amendment to change.

It's not a few. It's the majority of two continents.

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.

What’s the logical train of thought here?

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?

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 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 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?

> the attempt to throw back their rhetoric to them is always perceived as “weak”, “beta”

You're literally calling "the left...beta" in this thread [1]!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Der_Einzige

Think you could clarify? I can't figure out which side you're objecting to.

> When I voted for the leopard party I didn't think the leopards would eat the faces of people I like

This isn't a good-faith interpretation of their comment.

There are plenty of illegal immigrants with a criminal record. Trump's pitch was to deport them. There was also a pitch that strongly hinted at deporting basically anyone who isn't white, and I think this appealed to the racist fifth of Americans [1], but plenty of people were messaged the first part with the second being segregated to rallies, NewsMax, Twitter, et cetera.

[1] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/poll-finds-suppo...

I think the retrospection should be why the massive influx was allowed to happen between 2020 to 2024. Because it did happened before, so it's not like we didn't know this will/can happen. There should be massive increase in processing of claims. Not extrajudciary deporting people. Why would somebody predict extrajudicial deporting if that hasn't happened before?

> hard and complex problems require hard and complex solutions

There's actually a simple solution to illegal immigration: go after the employers. We don't because we want to have our cake and eat it too. (Same reason these raids aren't happening on farms in red states.)

I suspect you're being downvoted because your statement is interpreted as a both sides argument, but you are correct. The thing about up taking off guard rails is that they are taken off for whoever holds the power in the future. If this Trump administration policy is allowed to stand, there isn't anything stopping a future president, Democrat or Republican, from uncitizening political opponents and shuffling them off to a prison beyond the range of the press to observe or Congress to oversee.

It's extremely dangerous, a viper striking at the heel of the checks and balances against tyranny soaking this government.

They should count toward the electoral college in the census. The authority the states hold over the functioning of the federal government should be a function of the number of people the states are responsible for.

Purely hypothetically, if red States don't like this they could address the issue by adopting policies that encourage immigrants, undocumented and otherwise, to come to their states.

Prove it

"the actual estimated amount"

[citation needed]

That's not a citation.

They have other plans such as intimidating the judiciary. That’s just for starters. If you think the uphill battle of a constitutional amendment is going to save us I think you should pay closer attention to what’s been going on.

They're trying to get it to the supreme court and hoping there are enough Trump loyalists there to overturn 250 years of precedent.

The problem is one of documentation. Our system does not provide an adequate means of identifying those of legal status--and I think that's actually a good thing because the illegals would work under stolen identities rather than fake identities. Worse for those whose identity gets stolen (my mother had a long battle with the IRS over this--the IRS insisted that it was her responsibility to get her "employer" to fix her W2. The employer that she had never even heard of and couldn't locate. With the hindsight of the internet I suspect she should have filed the form to amend a W2, but this was before the internet.)

And our work permit documentation is remarkably easy to fake and tricky for an employer to even verify. Consider: foreign passport. Social security card marked "not valid for employment". Letter from the Immigration department giving temporary work permission. Legal? Yes, that was my wife while we were going through the green card process.

THe FBI/ICE sure cam after a judge that helped an illegal immigrant. I'm sure the FBI/ICE is using the same zeal to go after employers who helped them.

Especially the part about “we imprisoned legal residents of the US in a foreign country without due process and now can’t do anything about it, even though the Supreme Court told us we have to return them to the USA, because, whoops, they are imprisoned in a foreign country!” bit.

> No, this kind of deportation and treatment of prisoners/detainees has been happening forever.

Another assertion without any justification or data.

> Remember the "kids in cages" saga?

Yes, of course, and that's the point. There was huge outcry then, and that cruel policy was implemented by the same person responsible for this policy. It doesn't make sense to say "this has been happening forever" and then bring up an example from 2017-2020. We are all well aware of Trump's view on immigration and the rule of law. The whole point is that Trump's policies are a huge aberration from what any other administration, Republican or Democrat, has put forth in the past 50 years.

This is like the third or fourth response I've seen that keeps making the same assertion with no evidence to back up their position. So I'll be very clear on what I think is new and not just "more of the same":

1. The deliberate attempts to deny due process by scheduling deportations before filed writs can be responded to in court.

2. The deportation of US minor citizen children as a matter of policy.

If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all ears. Everything else is just "feels".

I guess the question is how frequent it's been. A big part of Trumpism is taking sketchy practices that used to be exceptional and turning them into standard operating procedure, and then claiming "oh look others did this before"

I mean, look at Hillary Clinton's emails, extorting of lawfirms, big tech, etc, his ignoring of court orders, etc. All are things that you can look at and say "he's not the first to do this" and be completely correct, but completely missing the point that he's doing it waay more aggressively.

Immigration courts are already separate from the rest of the legal system so the implication here is wrong.

Going too slow for you? Hire more immigration judges, which are executive employees not full article 3 judges.

Voters across the political spectrum have made it clear in poll after poll the last few weeks that they do not approve of the way this administration is grabbing whoever they can and shipping them out of the country without any check or verification that they are deporting the right people.

If the administration can declare you an illegal immigrant with no due process they can ship anyone they want out of the country. They could grab you off the street, ship you to and El Salvador torture prison intentionally or by mistake (as they have already admitted to) and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Purely hypothetically, blue sky solution space?

If the law exceeds the government's ability to enforce it, relax it. It's de facto relaxed because of the lack of fundamental resources to enforce it... Put the reality on paper.

Stop treating the southern border as a war zone and reopen it. It used to be more open. It was, in fact, more open in that magical America great period that MAGA ostensibly seems to be nostalgic for. Not only did the country survive the openness, it flourished.

If the law is too hard to enforce, have less of it. Lower scrutiny. Hand out day passes. Welcome The stranger with a smile and a friendly wave.

Admit that the current and past efforts to keep people out and quickly deport people failed. And then set up reliable systems of verifying people's citizenship before they can get a job and quickly deport those who should be deported.

Make it easier to work here legally in the US like it used to be in the 90s, and threaten CEOs with jail time if their companies have a pattern of hiring ineligible workers.

And let's be clear, a lot of this border security "crisis" is rooted in racism and Fox news alarmism. The GOP likes having the problem because it keeps the base angry.

Congress could increase funding for the courts enough so that they could do their job. But that would go against the Republican quest for smaller government and lower taxes.

Something to consider: The Republicans have *deliberately* starved the system as a means of delaying granting asylum. They caused the problem!

Too bad.

A world where the government gets to say "well it is annoying and expensive to follow the law give people rights so we just won't" is a horror show.

If the people really want a world where people are denied legal process then they can build the popular support for a constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is going to have to pay for this shit.

And we did have a legislative effort to reduce the number of illegal border crossings. Trump scuttled it.

that's true, so basically they deported somebody that one day could become President!

While true, I believe op was talking about with respect to the protections afforded by the law.

Sentencing children to die as they can't receive proper medical care when deported is not in any way the best solution.

Unless of course your lack empathy and de-humanize people by calling them "aliens".

Fairly clear that is not the argument here.

US constitution thoughtfully disagrees with you, elevating presence on the land at birth over bloodline wrt citizenship.

“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.” -US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Quite literally, US hospitals do have that magic pixie dust because they are on the land of this country.

> Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids.

Except our nation’s shared history, values, and national culture is that we’re a nation of immigrants, a melting pot of global cultures, a refuge for those in need, and a place where anyone can come to seek their fortune, so obviously American parents haven’t been passing on those values to their children if we’re still having this debate, and I think the only fair response to that is to deport all the children who don’t meet your standards of citizenship, by which I mean the entire cohort that’s arguing all this is OK.

US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Wax poetic about nativism all you like, it won’t change the truth.

As a birthright citizen I think my parents did a whole lot better than yours at instilling American values.

Do you really believe this? I've never met anyone opposed to birthright citizenship for the US. Our shared history, values, and national culture are all about immigration so this isn't computing for me. Plus the law seems settled on this issue, or at least was before Trump 2.0. I genuinely don't understand how thinking people can support the current administration's policies on numerous issues. Tried going to r/conservative, watching Fox News, etc. but it hasn't helped much to date.

The problem would be minimum wage and insurance requirements for employing citizens. There are plenty of citizens that would work those jobs but nobody would hire them because they cost too much. What you are arguing for is to continue allowing people to come here so employers can pay them less than a citizen is legally required to be paid. Once they become legal employers no longer want to employ them for the same reason they don't want to hire citizens.

We do have a chicken and egg problem. I think the idea here is that it's a systemic issue and the enforcement is focussed on individuals. This is analogous to the concept of getting everyday people to recycle when the companies creating the products have greater control over how much garbage is produced.

Employers need to stop taking advantage of undocumented workers at artificially suppressed wages. This has acted like a subsidy keeping these poor business models afloat. This has led us to the situation we are in now, where we've become dependent on undocumented migrants (food production etc), who we are being taking advantage of (lower wages, less rights), and also trying to villanize & deport them (the article above). All simultaneously.

It's possible with careful coordination of industry, legislation, and immagration, we wouldn't be here. But now that we are, we need to either find a way to improve the situation or reverse it.

or alternatively that the US doesn't have a guest worker program similar in scope to most of the developed world, and this is at least partially due to political concerns around birthright.

I think then we would have an "oh shit" moment and finally reform the legal immigration system to allow immigrants to come do all these jobs legally.

It would be a forcing function.

The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term, ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics

Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and oranges, but the best I can find so far) at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of Biden's term.

So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to go to the US, except by making it worse that the places people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.

I'm in favor of that too, but I think this insistence on it being step 1 is actually just a resistance to solving the real problem. (Which is that employers are happy to pay below market wages to illegally employ immigrants who are here unlawfully.)

The question then is the mother the legal guardian of the kids and was she given a choice to hand off the kids to someone else? If the mother was the legal guardian and she decided to take the USC kids with her, that is her right.

I think the details will matter here, it does seem like ICE skrewed the pooch here in not giving the family recourse to get the kids out of the detainee facility. If the USC kids were involuntarily detained that is a problem (despite it may be legal to do that according to US federal law).

Possibly meant "the citizen's father"

Sure, the point is that the poster I was responding to said that the only way to avoid putting US citizen minor children in a position where they have to either leave the country, or stay in the country without their parents, is to effectively grant citizenship to the parents. My point is that that's a false choice, it would be possible to grant the parents a temporary, conditional status that's based on having minor US-citizen children. It's not an ideal solution, but it protects the constitutional rights of US-citizen minor children without granting citizenship to the parents.

This gets at another portion of the answer to the "what's your alternative suggestion?" question: I'd suggest Congress pass laws, rather than presidents making stuff up, illegally. This is clearly not a partisan point! Every president in my voting lifetime - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - has made up immigration law while Congress sat on its thumbs.

IANAL, but interpretation of:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not.

Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.

Exactly. Same for dual citizenship. I realize there is nothing right or wrong about whether a countries allows dual citizenship -- it's just two different ways of doing things. Although that's a bit of a stretch here.

> American right-wing reeks of elitism

Common notion, but based in ignorance. I've found that the left wing is more idealistic, but in the sense that they have chosen not to learn from history and rely on immediate emotional values. The right wing sees second order effects and acts on them.

Thus, you get the left calling the right heartless/immoral/racist, and the right calling the left idiots.

If only custody and other issues could have been determined h a court, not ICE ignoring the court while it expedited a flight out of the country then said “sorry, too late”.

Just like everywhere else.

Repeating a bit, but we already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice.

We don't elect an all powerful leader. The people did vote for Trump. But "well they voted for Trump" is not an excuse for him to do literally anything. If the people want legislative changed then they elect people in Congress. If the people want to change the constitution itself then they can seek that too.

But "well Trump won so just have ICE kill them all" (this is what my aunt, a republican lobbyist, wants) is not a thing.

We already do this between states in the US and in the EU, so clearly it can work in practice. We don't normally look at it that way, but that is precisely how we structured things.

Then honor demands that we die. I think there are still other outcomes possible but if that's how it is that's how it is.

I suspect it won’t come. The US embedded itself in everyone else’s business and is now withdrawing so we all have our own problems to deal with.

The safest thing to do is GTFO before the masses rush to do it. The breakdown of separation of powers in the canary in the coal mine.

> be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent.

The Nazi were a mess, plagued with infighting, and completely incapable of measuring the strength of their opponents, which eventually led to their downfall.

Incompetent evil people can still do a lot of harm until they screw up for good. This doesn't stop them being incompetent.

Seeing as how this article is talking about the deportation of US citizens, I'm going to question what exactly you mean by "here illegally".

Expanding the argument: I've just decided that you are illegally, and will thus be deported. As there is no due process, my word is law, have fun wherever you end up I literally do not care.

Does that seem fair? And before arguing "well this wouldn't happen, I'm not here illegally", again, this is an article about the deportation of US citizens. Children no less.

How do you know they are "illegally" shielding people? Was there any kind of process to figure this out?

Also, a few days back, you made the same point and someone furnished you links where legal migrants are being caught in a net. This is not an argument in good faith.

> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.

Technically Secretary Clinton called half of her opponent’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.” So 0.25 of the voting population at most.

But if that sounds worse than anything uttered by this administration, you’re not listening closely. I’m Canadian and we’ve been called “one of the nastiest countries.”

> We're not deporting "undesirables", just those who flooded in here illegally.

Ironically you say that in the comments section of a US citizen being held prior to deportation. Maybe those pesky children are flooding in there illegally?

> if we didn't have people trying to illegally shield them from ICE.

If only those annoying people weren't trying to hide Jews from the SS back in the day eh?

> Equating that to Nazi Germany is disingenuous and completely off the mark.

By all means, proceed. I am watching from afar with amusement as the US descends into banana Republic status with a sprinkle of old school European fascism now that the ICE is basically acting like Stasi or Gestapo from years past.

I wonder what you would consider to be enough for the comparison to not be disingenuous anymore. Perhaps when the ovens are burning in some Central American death camp.

Why then are people with legal visas being detained or having their visas revoked if it is just those who "flooded here illegally" under threat?

Clinton said that many Trump voters were deplorables. Trump said that many immigrants are not human. Now I know which sounds more like the Nazis to me.

Really? Immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country” is straight from Hitler’s playbook, and it definitely wasn’t a Clinton who said that.

>When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.

Lol. That was three campaigns ago, and she was correct, and you guys are still whining about it like a bunch of snowflakes. Let it go. Hillary Clinton can't hurt you anymore.

> When Hillary called half the nation "deplorables", that was closer to Hitler rhetoric than anything I've heard out of this administration.

Here’s Trump straight-up uding white nationalist rhetoric:

> Nobody has any idea where these people are coming from, and we know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions [and] insane asylums. We know they're terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It's poisoning the blood of our country. It's so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.

(https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis-post/watch-the-nationa...)

Now, it’s telling that you’re pretending not to have heard your guy say things like that while his administration is sending people to concentration camps without due process but are still upset about something from a decade ago which you are misrepresenting.

Here’s the full quote, which is notable because she identified the specific behaviors she considered deplorable AND explicitly called for sympathy for the large group of people who are motivated by problems in their lives rather than bigotry. Also note that she’s talking about half of the third of the country which votes for him.

> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

> But the "other" basket – the other basket – and I know because I look at this crowd I see friends from all over America here: I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas and – as well as, you know, New York and California – but that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM

That makes quite the contrast where he looks worse the more of his speech you read while her speech looks better in context and makes it clear that while he hates people based on who they are, she reserved judgement based on what they do.

I’ve been in tech for about 2 decades now, and the general culture has always been to disregard ethics and social impact. How many times have we heard “We’re just building tools. Tools are apolitical and ethically neutral, it’s how you use them that matters!” It turns out that is actually not the case.

Plus the insistence that we can cordon off an area of life and designate it non political is incredibly common but also pretty naive (and dare I say privileged).

That is to say, we in the tech industry often encourage this sort of moral bankruptcy and like to pretend we’re above it all.

Canada does not have what they call "Qualified Immunity" but they have large scale immunity under the law already. (https://winnipegpolice.substack.com/p/trust-and-confidence-t...)

"Qualified Immunity" comes from the fact Americans have independent judicial branch and can directly bring law enforcement into that judiciary. In most countries, any action against law enforcement for their official duties is limited to government/department so they have large scale defense anyways.

If you think it's wrong then it certainly does not 'has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law'

If you can't criticize the overall objective (large-scale depopulation of America because so-called undesirables don't meet arbitrary legal criteria) then at least criticize the approach - don't call it an ugly but necessary business.

Call it a completely unnecessary violation of civil rights and due process that it is! Don't make up garbage about sovereignty.

> A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally.

I don't know if this is true, it seems more like a situational demand that you're making but giving it the tone of a fact that you're pointing out.

If you break into my house, and I shoot you while you're doing it, I won't go to prison. So either you're illegal, or I've become so extraordinarily legal that I can shoot people with impunity. Whatever has happened in that hypothetical, I do not think it is unjust. If you also do not, you don't agree with your own premise.

Maybe if you make it rhyme, it will slip past people's reasoning skills better.

> I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life

You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the charts.

I think this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point. They are here illegally. They can exist elsewhere legally.

Respect for law is critical, and valorizing the breaking it undermines the very concept of society.

If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law.

Can I exist in your bedroom while you sleep tonight? Your argument is ridiculous.

Yes, because expelling citizens is illegal, and separating children from their families is tragic. Just being sarcastic and cynical about it doesn't change this.

This just dishonest. In the past, the rule of law applied. The law is not perfect or kind, but there was a process where people could defend themselves and egregious violations of U.S. law like this would be avoided. It wouldn’t be the child being “separated from their parents”, it would be the family choosing to go together OR the family choosing to have their child live with relatives.

The case we heard about yesterday illustrates the difference. A judge Trump appointed raised the alarm not just because due process is being violated but because a two year old’s father was pleading with the court to let his daughter live with him. Prior to this administration, nobody would have blinked an eye at a U.S. citizen switching custody to a U.S. citizen parent, and it’d save the government a lot of money to let that happen.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...

Apologies, It was the FBI that arrested her, but may not have been to whom she lied; This is described as:

"Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the US"

-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d62bd73e-a370-40e4-...

My understanding is that even in the case of an ICE agent, can also be a felony:

https://www.birdsall-law.com/legal-implications-of-interferi...

The agents are described by the FBI agents as "Agents from [DHS], [ICE ERO]" without scare-quotes - are you implying that they weren't legitimate agents? That said, FBI and CBP agents are also described as being present, so the distinction between ICE/FBI, and a judicial/administrative warrant seem unimportant.

> Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating courtroom

She appeared to co-operate (leading them away to talk to the Chief judge), while actually helping the subject evade arrest (returning and actually instructing them how to escape).

The first part, the deception, is what makes the lie rather than a mere upfront refusal.

> which she was 100% right to do

obstruct the agents? In which case they are right to arrest her.. I'm not sure what your angle here is.

> nothing you said is accurate.

Seems to me your own corrections are just as inaccurate. The above should clarify.

You can do what Australia does which is offshore processing

First, I don't believe this crime rises to the level of jail. Second, it doesn't make sense here because if the parents are jailed who will take care of the children? I'm also not sold on putting more people into the meat grinder of US judicial system. When they deported at least they will be free. Ironically, compared to the US judicial system, this is the more human approach.

Or, for that matter, driven a car badly but not been pulled over at all? Surely in the interest of absolute lawfulness they then proceeded to the nearest police station to demand to be ticketed.

Surely you understand the difference between a cop declining to issue a speeding ticket and a federal "discretionary" policy that makes it de facto legal to violate standing immigration law at scale.

And there was a time when the democratic party was lukewarm on civil rights but neither of those things were influential in the 2024 election.

They threw Harris a hospital pass, and other variables also matter, but ultimately the party that was positive about migration lost the vote.

> a judge arrested in her court room

But she did something illegal? Like while I agree with her ideals, if she did something illegal than she can get arrested.

[flagged]

Remember Willem van Spronsen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Tacoma_immigration_detent...

Is there any collective action going on besides lip-service protests?

> That means there is not only legitimacy, but necessity, in the opposition to begin deploying violence as a political tactic as well.

No. It. Does. Not.

Violence begets violence, and it is all our interests to fight against violence wherever, whenever.

Fight fire, with water

Based on some interactions I have had with CBP and ICE in the past as a legal immigrant, I'm confident that many of those people aren't doing it because of any sort of monetary gain or career advancement, but simply because it gives them an outlet to realize their sadistic tendencies.

And because is tolerated and even encouraged, these jobs attract exactly those kinds of people. Which is how you end up with an organization with an internal culture that revels in human suffering.

Fascists think your love and compassion are foolish weaknesses that should be mocked.

I’ve been in the get-out-the-vote space for 25 years, now. I’ve been politically active against gerrymandering nearly as long. My wife was tooth-and-nails in the redistricting fight (in Texas; Texas!) for ~10 years.

Here’s my hands-on experience: at least half the people you meet are defective, to a scary extent, functionally in terms of empathy. Probably two thirds have serious executive functioning deficits. That means they can neither understand the plight of their fellows; and, even if they could, they could not generalize their own situation into a policy to help everyone in the same situation.

EDIT: most people don’t vote. A disproportionate number that do are both empathetic, and high have high levels of executive functioning skills. The flip side of the coin are activated people who are missing one-or-the-other skills, but are voting out of some other errant ideology. I want to be clear that the distribution of voters is “both sides”: there are disgusting and enlightened voters on both sides of the spectrum. We’re all trapped in the box, together.

> MLK said it best: "the moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

Are you a moderate who has a better plan? I ask that sincerely, if I've given up its not because I prefer peace but because I know a losing battle when I see one. We don't have a charismatic leader like MLK. The democratic party is in shambles. They're afraid of fighting the tariffs and alienating the working class. There is no one in the party who is broadly likeable, who has any chance of bringing the voting public together. Voters on the left still cling to their own personal pet peeves and insist they will never vote for anyone who doesn't specifically address whatever they think is the _real_ problem.

The sad reality is that Trump's policies are still really popular and if people are unhappy they are only unhappy with the execution. You see that in this thread. People see the this news story and see it as an unfortunate side effect of a basically good policy. They think illegal immigration is hurting our economy, they think 'anchor babies' are people taking advantage of a loophole that should be closed.

They think this country suffers because of tariffs and maybe they think Trump got carried away but they still support the idea. They are sick of Ukraine and think it's time we walked away. They think DEI means a black women will be hired over a white man under any circumstances. They think DEI in schools means our kids are being taught that the US is full of horrible backwards racists and sexists who need liberal saviors to make it better. They think that government agencies are overpaid and over bloated and full of people who don't do anything but get a fat paycheck.

These beliefs cut across people of all genders, of all colors, of all ages, of all states and cities. We can't even blame the boomers anymore and insist the younger generations will save us. No one will save us.

Worse, I believe anything the average citizen can do will either be ineffective or counterproductive. They are not going to listen to anything other than force and any outside force will simply provide a focus. Thus the force must come from within--law enforcement has to do their job. Or, if they don't, a military coup.

> I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates.

If everyone hates it, you only need to fight it if has external support. A regime needs considerable active support and even wider at least tacit support to operate; if everyone locally hates it, it cannot function as a regime (but, if it has sufficient external support, can perhaps function as an occupation, that you do have to fight.)

> I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports.

You fight it by actively seeking to make it one that has much less support, by means such as revealing to the people who would oppose various acts the things that it is doing that have been effectively concealed or misrepresented to them that they would oppose if they understood.

> I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that.

In reality, around 22% of the US populace (not just voters, but everyone) voted for Trump. Similar voted for Harris.

The rest didn't vote. I refuse to attribute justifications, since they are too numerous.

But that is correct, peaceful protests like 50501 aren't going to do much. Their value is more networking and mutual aid creation/management.

What does work, especially historically, is violence. As a historian, when you look at pivotal points in history, changes were only won after a LOT of violence was applied.

The trick is that groups like 50501 are absolutely needed for a different reason. The governments cannot negotiate with 'terrorists', but can save face by negotiating with 'peaceful groups'. We see this recently with MLK and Malcolm X, Sinn Fein and IRA, Ghandi and dozens of separatist factions.

I'm not publically advocating violence, but the more fascist they become, well, that will be inevitable. Different people and groups have different lines in the sand.

We're already talking about breaching medical records for 'defectives' (autism) list, turning trans folk into non-humans, kidnapping/disappearing people off the street, tattle-tale emails and phone#s to report people, lebensraum (Canada, Greenland, etc), off-country concentration camps (CECOT), and more. And we're only 3 months in of 4 years.

If I had the ability to get out, I would have. But I'm guessing that even the better off here also don't have the ability.

>The other thinks that law should not apply to illegal immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process violation.

Where? Who? You're just making this up.

I totally agree that is the common and probable outcome. However, is not the exclusive outcome, nor does it have to be enthusiastically supported.

Norm erosion and law breaking often see tit for tat retaliation with the notable exception of when norms and order are productively restored.

I follow your comments because I find them balanced and often insightful, even (or perhaps especially) when I disagree. For this reason, I was surprised to see you advocate more unjust and amoral behavior, even if it is in the form of retaliation.

Sometimes the vibes are wrong, and things go haywire. This is why zero tolerance policies have to be instituted in schools. That doesnt mean the general idea is wrong. Strict adherence to written law will always fail justice. The world is too nuanced and too fractal to handle every edge case well.

Every system fails sometimes. The only interesting question is whether it is systemic or not.

Absolutely. And this whole idea of demonizing misinformation just makes it worse by implying that true information presented in a way that intentionally and actually misleads readers is somehow OK.

Do a retrospective, you’ll see there are media outlets that have given accurate information and assessments of the world. The measure should be whether what they report holds true as time passes and whether, using their reporting to extrapolate predictions, do those predictions come true.

Your pessimism in all media is unfounded.

When reading an article, how do I figure out what the “good reporter” is trying to say, and distinguish it from what the “bad owner” is trying to say?

The best way I know is to carefully parse the text in its most literal form. That is what the “good reporter” is saying. The “general idea” of what is being said is probably what the editor wants.

Owners and editors want “wow” articles. Journalists know most of what they report is just “somebody said something.”

Do you not recognize that that letter was most likely signed under duress? She was probably offered to permit her baby to be deported with or or the baby goes into the foster care system, not to the husband. The Felon has specifically used separation from families and destroyed records as a weapon before, why do you think he's not doing it now??

> this is a story that really attempts to justify the use of birthright citizenship to create chain immigration …

*Which is the current law of the land.* The existing jurisprudence states that all people born on US land (with the exception of some foreign diplomat children) are US citizens.

The ACLU is arguing to maintain the existing, settled law. Attempts to undo birthright citizenship need to argue how they think it should work and why they think it should be changed without a Constitutional amendment.

Yes, obviously the ACLU will pick a case that has good optics for them. That is how EVERY special interest tries to bring their preferred case up the appeals chain towards SCOTUS. We aren’t ignorant of that. That’s pan outgrowth of the fact that the US court system is adversarial.

Here’s a fun thought experiment: if birthright citizenship requires additional requirements (I think the Trump admin claims it should also require at least 1 parent be a US citizenship at the time of the birth in the USA), does the citizenship rollback apply retroactively? Does it retroactively apply to all generations going back to the founding of the country? Does it go back even further?

Scarier thought experiment: Has any country ever tried to remove citizenship from tens or hundreds of millions of citizens? How do we “deport” people who have known no other country as home and have no paperwork in any other country?

In the case I have in mind, dad was an American, not to be deported anywhere cause he is an American and engaged in legal figt to keep the kid.

The "kid cant be without a parent" excuse does not work there.

Define grim? Surging stock market, reduced inflation? 4% of the global population producing 75% of Nobel prizes ( half of which are immigrants), robust high tech manufacturing? Robust agriculture that was recovered from the first round of tariffs? Increased housing stock stabilizing prices? The Chips act and infrastructure bill that would have accelerated strategic manufacturing growth? Clean energy investments that would have given us more power for AI.

Our economy, ability to feed ourselves, and ability to sustain our population is fundamentally dependent on "Permanent legal mass migration."

Is anyone buying that the US can't pressure El Salvador to get back someone it wants?

Nope, America has become so weak under the new rule that now when El Salvador says something America has to shut up and obey… It is what it is… :)

Dishonest phrasing. The children were the US citizens. Parents were in US illegally. They deported the parents and their kids along with them. Should they go into foster care instead?

Thereby establishing the president that breaking the law will go unpunished so long as you procreate. Doesn't feel very empathic, fair or humane to me, especially when the precedent kicks in.

So basically create a huge incentive to drag very sick kids through the darien gap and cartel land with no real plan for foid and housing of their kids? If i did 1% of that someone would call cps to take my kids.

If what chatgpt said is incorrect, I would love to know. Are you not interested in the legal details of these cases so we know what can be fought under current law and not? The cruelty of the actions should be judged harshly, and in the longer run we need to reform immigration law so they are not possible, but knowing what can currently be fought legally matters to me.

> you’d realize I’m referring to cheating against every other potential immigrant to come to the USA

I know. I'm pointing out that the mother's illegal immigration is outweighed by ICE's illegal detention, deportation and wilful abrogation of legal and constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen.

> what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are deporting the illegal alien mother and child is a citizen?

Follow the law. In this case, that would involve transfering the child to her designated custodian [1].

> If she didn’t take the child the same people would be likely be screaming about ICE separating families

Not an excuse for breaking the law!

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harp...

In a debate between the concrete reality of US children being kicked out of the country and hypothetical potential non-citizens not being able to become a citizen, I will side with the child every time. I don't think that's a radical position.

Here's an interesting question: are undocumented immigrants actually stopping non-citizens from becoming citizens? These two things are actually quite independent, yes? You're building a very similar argument to "piracy is bad because it takes money out of the hands of the RIAA."

The medicine is not worth the cure. While illegal border crossings are down, it's because all border crossings are down... People have become legitimately fearful outside this country that visiting this country, even as our guests legally, could result in a long stay in detention with no due process. The damage this administration is doing to America's international reputation Is by no means worth lower border crossing numbers. It's the equivalent of keeping rowdy teenagers off your property by waving a shotgun at them... It works, but now your neighbors know you is the crazy shotgun toting guy at the edge of town and they avoid you.

Pax Americana is built on a web of trust that includes the notion that America is a welcoming nation. I think it's going to take economists some time to calculate the full magnitude of the damage that closing up the borders will do to America's ability to realize all of its interests. Where are we going to get the next generation of innovators and creators of scientific breakthroughs when people stop showing up at our universities because we are capriciously kicking them out? How are the communities who were bothered or scared of undocumented immigrants going to fair when tourists stop showing up?

Your "more supply equals lower wages" argument is demolished by top economic research. A recent NBER study calculated that "immigration, thanks to native-immigrant complementarity and college skill content of immigrants, had a positive and significant effect between +1.7 to +2.6% on wages of less educated native workers" between 2000-2019.

The economy isn't zero-sum. As Milton Friedman noted, "most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." Immigrants create demand for housing, food, education, entertainment, and specialized services that natives often provide.

Historical evidence consistently disproves the fallacy: When women entered the workforce, it didn't cause massive job losses among men. When segregation was abolished, Black workers didn't cause mass unemployment among whites. The vast majority of Americans descend from immigrants who contributed to economic growth.

Research on H-1B visas shows that firms that get immigrant labor end up "hiring more tech workers and paying them more, because they become more efficient and sometimes scale up." In fact, studies show each H-1B worker creates approximately 1.83 jobs for native-born Americans.

The UK's Migration Advisory Committee, after reviewing studies from 2003-2018, concluded that "immigration had little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers" and "little impact on average wages."

The overwhelming consensus among economists is that immigration grows the economic pie rather than merely redistributing slices. That's why America's most immigrant-rich cities consistently have the highest wages, not the lowest.

PLEASE, I am begging you. Spend 15 minutes reading actual economic research before posting confidently incorrect Econ 101 oversimplifications. The "immigrants take our jobs" fallacy has been debunked by virtually every reputable economic study for the past 30 years. This isn't some fringe academic view. It's the overwhelming consensus of actual economists who study this for a living. Your intuition about "more workers = lower wages" seems logical but falls apart when tested against actual economic data. The real world is more complex than a supply-and-demand graph from an introductory textbook.

The CIS is a joke of an organization and unsurprisingly their “research” is just the same vibe racism you can find on any right wing message board. Camarota previously claimed in a similarly ‘published’ paper that 2/3 of the jobs created under Obama went to illegal immigrants. Not remotely a serious person.