151–160 of 908 posts
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.
You got a source for that? I've hear otherwise about some of the parent's decisions for their US citizen children.
> But for interesting HN discussion... anyone got any juice on why this is happening. Is there orders going down the chain of command from the president to do this sort of thing. Was this behaviour always there but less reported before? Are they more emboldened by the current environment?
The current administration has set targets for numbers of people deported(which ICE is currently behind on). That creates an incentive to skip due process in order to get more people deported more quickly (and the awareness that there will no consequences for doing so probably contributes as well)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Trump said that many immigrants are not human. I am very much not a Trump fan, but I need to see a source for that claim.
The first I heard it was in the debate with Harris (that she "wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in jail").
[flagged]
Due Process is being denied to US citizens, who are being removed from the country without the opportunity for them or their parents to consult an attorney.
> According to a Migration Policy Institute report, the deportation system dramatically changed over the past 19 years - moving from a judicial system prior to 1996 where most people facing deportation had immigration court hearings, to a system during Obama's administration where 75 percent of people removed did not see a judge before being deported.
You have to understand that most what you read about online about this administration is not written in good faith and reported honestly. Everything is unprecedented and a constitutional crisis. Really unforgivable when basic questions in an LLM can provide you meaningful context
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairn...
While the 3 minors are US citizens, their parents are not and the parents can be deported because they are in the country illegally. That means you have the following options: a) deport nobody, i.e. you don't apply the law b) deport just the parents. What do you do with the minor children? Separating them from their parents (different countries) would be cruel. c) deport the entire family, including the US minors. Si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The phrase "solely one of birthright" suggests the diminishment of the citizenship of certain people. That is not how citizenship works: no one is less of a citizen than anyone else. The most objectionable part here — by far — is not the deportation of the parents, but the deportation of citizens and the lack of due process. The alternative being proposed is that if ICE is going to deport the parents of US citizen ch…
no one is less of a citizen than anyone else This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the president, a naturalized citizen cannot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct. People watch too much TV and think this is out of the ordinary. If the children were kept here we'd be weeping about kids being separated from their parents.
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 yeste…
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.
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.
Are you suggesting we never deport parents under any circumstance? Having a citizen child is not some get-out-deportation-free card.
While the 3 minors are US citizens, their parents are not and the parents can be deported because they are in the country illegally. That means you have the following options: a) deport nobody, i.e. you don't apply the law b) deport just the parents. What do you do with the minor children? Separating them from their parents (different countries) would be cruel. c) deport the entire family, including the US minors. Si…
D) the child remains with the legally resident / citizen parent or their immediate families
In these cases they have legally resident parents, just not the one who the child was with when snatched without due process. They’re being denied the ability to coordinate the handoff of the child to the other parent or family who can take responsibility. ICE is not allowing the families to coordinate the child’s care - they’re isolating the parent from their broader families, denying due process, access to legal representation, and unilaterally deporting US citizen children who have other options but were denied the ability to access them.
In the United States our constitution assures -all people- due process and basic human rights. There is no carve out that if you’re visiting the country or otherwise not a citizen that you can be summarily detained, deprived of liberty, and handled however the government chooses including extraordinary rendition to third countries for indefinite imprisonment without recourse. Nothing that is happening is allowable, or even defensible because however you feel about immigration - every action being taken could be taken to tourists, students, or other guests if allowed under the premise only citizens enjoy protections.
And in these cases, even citizens are being given no deference - and the fact they’re toddlers should be even more frightening.
Here’s a quote from the release that basically implies ICE is murdering one child summarily:
“””a U.S. citizen child suffering from a rare form of metastatic cancer was deported without medication or the ability to consult with their treating physicians–despite ICE being notified in advance of the child’s urgent medical needs.“””
So, the headline as written dramatically understates the situation, and the proposed dichotomy is false. There are many other options, spelled out in the law and regulation and requirements - even constitutionally - and they’re being ignored as an apparent matter of political policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be more appropriate. While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong word highlights that the wrong action is being applied. The action is a deportation. The targets are people who must/shall not ever be deported. Therefore the headline immediately gets attention for concisely describing a violation.
I think what happened here is that the parents were here illegally. The children just had to accompany the parents. I find it quite possible that the children will be allowed back in once they no longer have to depend on their parents.
I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life must have taken to think a person existing in a space is summarizable as illegal. A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. They could enter a space illegally. They could be unauthorized to be in a space. But by simple fact that they exist in the world, if the law makes them illegal to exist, then that law is unjust and should be considered void ab initio based on the very few common similarities among coherent moral frameworks.
From a practical perspective, as parents and tutelaries of children who have citizenship, they should be allowed to stay as guardians and join the US society. We have so many who thumb their nose at culture in the US, whether the right wanting to commit genocide against the outgroup under the guise of MAGA or the left self-shaming because they know the US can be morally better, but of all people, immigrants, especially undocumented and unauthorized immigrants who risk everything and worked outside standard pathways just for the chance to be at the periphery of US society, vulnerable to the predators and outlaws that inhabit that domain, they should be given extraordinary respect and consideration -- which is what we grant all persons who are in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (which is geographically defined).