[clusterfook]

<<Insert Rage>>

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?

[pge]

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)

[briffle]

They are also trying to push for an end to birthright citizenship.

[masklinn]

The administration has also been "defending" their absence of due process and trying to work around judge orders to stop, shaving as close to the letter of judicial orders as they could when they don't just ignore them entirely.

ICE taking that as carte blanche to smash and grab is perfectly logical given that agency is ICE.

[chairmansteve]

Explains the deportation of Canadian and European tourists. They need to get their numbers up.

[scarface_74]

And while trying to meet those numbers, they are being specifically told not to do mass raids of farms and other business in red states that will hurt Trump voters

[potato3732842]

Because it's always been happening. If they didn't already have this sort of abuse practiced they wouldn't be so good at it. The ACLU used to write basically the same exact pieces about the DEA

Maybe it's 10% or 20% more prevalent or worse, I can't say from my vantage point, but it's a difference of degree, not a categorical one. You read these stories and they read exactly like all the other stories of how all sorts of "criminals" have been abused by the system for years, especially when they have a political blank check to do do. Making it hard for people to get a lawyer, moving too fast for people to appeal anything or get outside scrutiny is exactly how these systems have always behaved when they feel like it.

Now it's ICE and not DEA or whatever but this is basically the level of abuse with which the authorities have always treated with.

It's nice that the public is paying attention now, but I have very little hope that it will actually lead to systemic changes.

[UmGuys]

It has not. We have never previously sent immigrants to foreign concentration camps. There were internment camps which were bad enough during the war, but we're now kidnapping people, sending them to El Salvador, and locking them up for life.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> Because it's always been happening.

I don't like this kind of response because it's basically kind of an assumption, and you don't really give any evidence for it.

On one hand, sure, abuses by people in positions of power have always happened, so if you're just making a general argument that enforcement authorities abuse power, I mean yeah, human nature.

But this article is making some specific points:

1. Those who were deported were given basically zero access to even talk to a lawyer, and that in at least one case a habeas corpus petition was deliberately avoided by deporting the family at 6 AM before courts opened.

2. Multiple US minor citizen children were deported.

So, no, without more evidence, I'm not willing to believe that it's just some minor increase of degree. While yes, I'm sure there have been abuses in the past, the current policy seems hellbent on deporting as many people as possible, due process be damned, and that was not the policy in previous years. I'd also highlight that the current President has said, explicitly, that deporting people without due process is his goal: https://truthout.org/articles/we-cannot-give-everyone-a-tria...

In other words, I don't believe this is just an aberrant, abusive exception to the policy. It very much seems like this is the policy now.

[hartator]

Yes, nothing much changed law-wise.

No due process at the borders is a shame both now and before, but hopefully this time there is a willingness to change things. Probably not at the next swing of power.

[EasyMark]

Not the same thing. They are rushing people onto planes before the have any hope of seeing a judge, not documenting anything other than "we say so", and sometimes even sending deportees off to prisons well known for mistreatment and even torture of prisoners in El Salvador. This isn't even close to the same thing.

[grafmax]

I think you’re overlooking the fact that our world - and the U.S. in particular - is sinking deeper and deeper into a deep crisis. No one knows exactly where this crisis will lead, but one thing is clear: everything around us is undergoing systematic change. And if you care about that, now is the time to get involved, because it’s during the moments of crisis that societies change.

[somenameforme]

Every day across the world thousands of people are removed from countries around the world for violating immigration laws. Except in cases of where it coincided with criminality, it's always going to be very ugly, because it means somebody had built up a life for themselves somewhere and that is now ended due to them having been born in a different place and then overstayed their permission, or never received such, to stay somewhere else.

Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people? The parents were in the country illegally, and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright. Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough. That's not only completely unrealistic, but also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.

[sswatson]

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 children, the parents should be given the opportunity to seek legal counsel regarding how they're going to ensure care for their children.

[sanderjd]

> the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright

Under the US Constitution, this is not a distinction. What you're looking for is just "the children's citizenship" without this qualifier that signifies nothing under the law.

The better alternative is to aggressively enforce employment laws against employers. Immigrants come here and stay here to work.

[__turbobrew__]

> Like in this case, what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?

I like how nobody has actually answered this question yet, and have only harped on your birthright comment.

The parents are in the US illegally, ICE deports people who are in the US illegally. Presumably the parents didn’t want to leave their USC kids behind so they brought them.

I guess possible options are

1. Allow illegal parents to designate USC kids a guardian who has legal US immigration status

2. Dont deport illegal immigrants who have USC kids (basically making birthright transitive to parents)

[yodsanklai]

> it's always going to be very ugly,

It doesn't have to be as ugly as what is described in the article.

[p_j_w]

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?

How about real actual fucking due process? Maybe they can NOT cut off communication when the citizen father tried to provide her with a phone number for legal counsel. Anything else is ghoulish. Keep defending it if you really don’t give a shit about your level of humanity.

[UncleMeat]

> and the children's citizenship was solely one of birthright

My citizenship is solely that way too, even though generations of my ancestors were also citizens.

Unless you personally naturalized then your citizenship is solely by birthright. The vast majority of US citizens are this way. Insisting that this is somehow worth less in terms of legal protections is just frankly wrong.

Imagine you said this for other circumstances. "Well, a parent going to prison is always going to be hard for the family - better imprison the whole family!"

[apical_dendrite]

> Any sort of "pleasant" outcome would effectively require turning birthright citizenship into defacto citizenship for the parents as well, at least if they can stay illegally for long enough.

No, there are lots of immigration statuses between "illegal" and "citizen". DAPA, which was the Obama administration's policy, gave parents of US citizens a status where they could get temporary renewable work permits and exemption for deportation. This was not citizenship, or even a status that could allow someone to eventually become a citizen.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

First, the US needs to resolve its issue of citizenship. It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time. Instead we defaulted to "anyone born in a US hospital is a citizen"

Then, as welfare, lack of law enforcement and border grew, the broken citizenship process became a larger problem that now we have to deal with.

To me, the answer to your question of what is the alternative is as follows: The sole act of breaking laws and cutting the line to come into the country, to then birth babies here for the pusposes of straightjacketing the host's own response seems like should not be allowed, full stop. The premise of becoming a US citizen cannot be grounded in 2 crimes being committed before you are a citizen (1 illegal entry, 1 lying about your asylum petition).

We then have the issue of citizenship. It cannot be that because you come out of a womb that happens to be passing by a US hospital, you are a US citizen. US hospitals do not have magic pixie dust that grant american-ness. The Swiss have the right model that you actually have to come from at least 1 national parent, to foster national unity. The Swiss have the longest-lasting democracy in the world for a reason. Ignoring this seems suicidal. In nature and history, no humans prospered without an organized tribe centered around shared history and values.

Then there are the cases of people that came here, all legally, and found a life worth having by contributing to society. There should be a path for them to be citizens. What that path looks like, I dont know. But that's a conversation worth having soon since they are paying the price for the crimes and abuse committed by the 1st group.

[DragonStrength]

The issue is some ability to fight. For instance, I don’t think the child of a US citizen should be deported without consent of their citizen parent or a ruling against that parent. I’d like some assurance my own child won’t be disappeared to another country without my consent.

[nikanj]

The previous time the big mad that Obama was (supposedly) not born on the US soil, now the problem is that someone was born in the US.

Is there an acceptable way for POC to get citizenship anymore, if it's not by inheritance and it's not by being born in the US?

[exe34]

"what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent that you think could be agreeable to most people?"

A fair trial in court for a start.

[shadowgovt]

> also a complete slap in the face to the millions of people who try to migrate legally and are refused entry.

Yeah, it sounds like a completely unworkable situation.

If only there was some way to make it easier for people to stay in the United States with much relaxed concern about their citizenship status or documentation.

... Oh wait, we could just do that. Because it's our laws, which means it's rules for a game we made up for ourselves. The universe does not care about the lines drawn on a map. People do. If the lines drawn on a map and the separation of human beings across those lines is becoming painful... Maybe we stop hurting ourselves?

We could care less. We did care less in the past. It seemed to work pretty well.

[mayneack]

> That's not only completely unrealistic

I don't see how it's unrealistic.

[tomrod]

> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent

There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying.

The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like agreement, economically, militarily, and legally.

The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form of probation.

The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go. Authoritarians love this view.

The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their opponents to have this view.

[ohgr]

As my wise but now throughly dead German grandmother said:

”Do you think the nazis appeared out of thin air? No they were everywhere just waiting for someone to enable them with a label and an ideology.”

I suspect something analogous is happening here and it’s similarly not pretty. Hopefully it’ll get nipped in the bud quickly.

My fellow citizens scare me more than the government does.

[surgical_fire]

The interesting thing about this parallel, is that the "final solution" in Germany was final because it was not the original solution.

Originally they wanted to, well, deport the undesirables to some far off country, initially to Madagascar if memory serves.

Managing mass incarceration and deportation is a difficult task however, and these people (both then and now) are not exactly competent at anything beyond bravado.

Watching this unfolding from afar is interesting, because I can do so with some healthy detachment. If I lived across the pond I would be pretty desperate right now.

[sitkack]

I too have noticed the same language coming out of folks here, folks that have had accounts for over 10 or 15 years. They were always here, but now they emboldened and they are doing their best to make sure that overton window stays very very open on the right.

[stackskipton]

Since we are quoting, I quote FDR: "Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations--not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership in government."

True, we are not in bad shape like 1930s Germany or United States but as neoliberalism rot has really set in, people feel economically shaky, and government clearly is not responsive to them. Combined with Social Media warping people brain on what is "success" and "strong man" who will take care of things is clearly appealing. Many of them can also be turned around but it's going to take some doing.

[Larrikin]

>anyone got any juice on why this is happening.

Their skin color and national origin is offensive to the president and the percentage of the country that voted for him.

[yibg]

Deportations have always happened of course. But details matter. What’s making this administration different are:

- sloppiness and seeming cruelty of the process, intentional or not

- disregard for judicial rulings

- pushing boundaries with regards to who (those with legal status) and how (sending people to foreign prisons)

[doctorpangloss]

Previously with the family separation policy it was part of an aggressive campaign led by Stephen Miller personally. There are now a few more people who want to do this as much as he does, all in the administration. It was Trump who hired those people, and then it was Trump who rescinded family separations and fired Neilsen over it, because it made bad media. The public has a template for exactly how to stop it. All that said, this is what the Republican base wants.

[miltonlost]

> anyone got any juice on why this is happening.

Because Trump is an abject racist with a white nationalist policy who ran on deporting what he finds to be undesirable. It's not hard.

[eviks]

All of the above?

[elmerfud]

Your last statement is correct. They are just emboldened by the current political environment. Any law enforcement has a problem where all they see is criminals all day everyday, now we know they aren't always criminals, but that's their view point. There should be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that due process is still upheld. What we're seeing now is the lack of checks because law enforcement feels they will never be held accountable for violating due process. This, while likely not a direct order of the president, it is an environment that his rhetoric has fostered. Even in the cases where the supreme court has said, unanimously, that people have been deported improperly this environment causes those in positions to correct it to ignore the courts.

I support the general idea of expedited deportation of those here illegally, those without valid documents to be here, I don't automatically have a problem if there is greater restrictions on entering or issuing new visas, but I have a major problem with violating due process and these kind of mistakes that's are a result of lack of due diligence.

The courts need to get more heavily involved here. It's easy to blame the president but short of some directive telling people to violate the law the blame is misdirected (until it's election time). The blame needs to be on those individuals doing this thing or seeing it and ignoring it. This is where the courts need to totally strip away default qualified immunity, especially for immigration officers. Because qualified immunity allows them to just say they were following orders without them having to evaluate if what they are doing is legal or not.

I believe if qualified immunity was gone a lot of this nonsense would stop. They would make sure that anyone who was deported was meant to be deported.

I have a friend who is here legally awaiting an asylum hearing, been waiting for 5 years. They were stopped by police for a valid reason and, from what was described the police had probable cause, but the charge itself is very minor. Because she's documented waiting asylum they contacted immigration, for no reason. There was no probable cause to think she was in violation of her immigration status, but they still contacted them and they requested she be held. So now she detained and there's probable cause to do so but it's immigration so they can.

This is where no qualified immunity would make these officers think twice. They know they have no probable cause to continue to hold her beyond the initial charge. Without qualified immunity they would understand that continuing to hold someone after a judge has allowed their release means that they would lose their house their life their future. So I really think we need to end to qualified immunity across the board. Have the people who are supposed to protect us and be responsible for their actions.

[rsyring]

Without qualified immunity, no one in their right mind would want to work in law enforcement. LE would become an easy target for malicious litigation where the cost/effort to defend would, itself, be the weapon, regardless of whether or not the lawsuits were won.

LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.

I don't like some of the implications of qualified immunity, but I understand why it's there and needed.

I think the only real solution to LE abuses is criminal accountability and prosecution. We already have the laws and processes in place to make that happen. It's hindered by the tribal nature of the human condition and I'm not sure you get around that very easily, at least, not at scale.

[UmGuys]

Are you serious? Trump campaigned on spreading cruelty to these people and he's doing it. There's financial incentive to keep people in private prisons, and we're paying to send them to concentration camps, so it's not money. It's just bigotry.

[HDThoreaun]

The suffering is the point. The current administration thinks that by publicly treating anyone vaguely foreign horribly they will be able to end the allure illegal immigration. I guess the dirty secret is that this sort of stuff has been happening, the difference is that now the government wants everyone to know about it