US judge finds administration wilfully defied court order in deportation flights
176 comments
·April 17, 2025hayst4ck
Galanwe
The question is what do you do to prevent it?
Complaining on social media is fine, but that won't solve the problem.
As a European, I'm shocked at how complacent the public has been. I've lived in France and people do global strikes and widespread civil unrest for a change of retirement law. Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there and spicy comments on social media. That won't change things.
pjc50
Too much of the US population is still in favor of this sort of thing. After all, it's happening to an immigrant.
JeremyNT
I mean it's trite but obviously a democracy can fail in this way (see Weimar Germany). If you can make enough people feel aggrieved and give them an "other" to hate, you're off to the races.
This US slip into authoritarianism should cause us all to reconsider history too. This is the wealthiest country in the world, so economic trouble is clearly not required, and it gives lie to the notion that the US had some kind of unique structural defense against authoritarianism - maybe there is no defense, and this is inevitable.
ndsipa_pomu
In that case, they deserve what's likely to happen to them too.
People that only care about themselves or their racial group are a curse upon society.
sph
As long as their have Tiktok, Netflix and their burger and fries, people don’t really care. They write an angry comment, scroll to the next post about cute cats and forget all about it.
pjmlp
Ah the Roman way, however they also had their ways to change goverments when the ruler went too far off the track.
Gigachad
There’s going to be riots when it comes time to buy the Switch 2 and iPhone 17 which will cost double what the rest of the world pays.
dragonwriter
> As a European, I'm shocked at how complacent the public has been.
There have been large, growing, and recurring protests.
> Yet in the US a dictatorship emerges and you have small demonstrations here and there
They aren't small. (They aren't well covered by the media, but the media is actively part of the problem.)
> that won't change things.
The social infrastructure and culture around which things like general strikes and more significant actions occur does not exist in the United States. The current and growing protest movement (and the networking and community building go on around and behind it) is how that infrastructure gets built. So, I disagree, the things you are saying won't change it are absolutely indispensable to building the capacity for the kind of things that can change it, assuming that it continues to develop in a way that cannot be constrained effectively by more regular political means such as the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections.
rcpt
Change of retirement law directly impacts the population in a way they understand.
sandworm101
Because a very large number of Americans are pro-dictatorship. This is not an a Manchurian-candidate scenario. This is a legitimately-elected leader doing exactly what he was elected to do.
kzrdude
A lot of them seem to be cheering him on as if they elected a king. The problem being of course that legally there is no person who can just issue edicts and have them become law, there is no legal way to elect a king.
JohnFen
> This is a legitimately-elected leader doing exactly what he was elected to do.
He put a fair bit of effort in telling people he wasn't going to do most of this stuff. It was always clear that he was lying, but lots of people believed him and are now very surprised.
mandeepj
> This is a legitimately-elected leader doing exactly what he was elected to do.
He was elected to bring prices and inflation down; that’s what he campaigned on! He lied at that time and people trusted in his lies. He have no idea what he can do to bring prices and inflation down! Marketing could be his expertise, but when it comes to performing duties of the President, he’s super dumb.
raincom
If you bracket away Trump, political dissent in US is co-opted by one of the two parties(tea-parties, for instances), or muted(Occupy Wall Street) or criminalized. In other words, political dissent doesn't lead to the emergence of new parties, as is the case in Europe.
hayst4ck
Cyncicsm is the belief that you don't think there is anything worth fighting for. Cynicism is an admission that you prefer to submit than fight. Most of the world looked at Ukraine and cynically said that Zelenskyy would flee and Ukrainians would not fight because they themselves would not be willing to fight. Few people have values they would consider dying for. Few people would put themselves at risk for another person. Few people would be willing to die building a better world that they won't get to experience. Yet Ukrainians are fighting for western values right now. They are fighting for a government in which they are a person and not a thing. They are fighting for a government that does not treat them arbitrarily. They are fighting for them and their children to have a future.
On the Maidan revolution of Ukraine:
The Maidan was a revolt against произвол (pronounced: preez-vol), an idea of arbitrariness tinged with tyranny, helplessness in the face of power, the feeling that the powers that be can do whatever they want to you, and you are helpless, that you are being treated as a plaything, as a thing and not as a human being, as an object and not as a subject, and the Maidan became a revolt against произвол, it became an insistence on being treated as a person and not as a thing, as a subject not as an object, and they began to call themselves on the Maidan the revolution of dignity. The Making of Modern Ukraine: Maidan and Self-Understanding, Guest Lecturer: Marci Shore -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg_CLI3xY58&list=PLh9mgdi4rN...
In November 2013 Ukraine was expected to sign a long-anticipated association agreement with the European Union. At the eleventh hour, on 21 November 2013, Yanukovych refused.
The disappointment was especially crushing for students, who felt as if their future had vanished; Europe would be closed to them. That evening a thirty-two-year-old Ukrainian journalist from Kabul named Mustafa Nayyem wrote in Russian on his Facebook page:
Come on, let’s get serious.
Who is ready to go out to the Maidan by midnight tonight? ‘Likes’ don’t count.
I showed up to the first protest of my entire life on April 5th. This Saturday, April 19th, everyone here should show up, too.
Upvotes don't count.
throwaway290
> The violence against peaceful protestors was a shock.
A couple of months later not just violence. I know someone who was at the Maidan helping the wounded. That guy is mostly neutral and not pro West or whatnot, he just talked about what he saw and that included a few protesters fatally shot by paid agents (I didn't know about that until I talked to him). Clearly even that didn't work when people are motivated enough.
bongodongobob
We need violence. People are going to downvote this but this is the only way to push back. Peaceful protests are good for things like policy changes. Trump and his administration need to be dragged through the streets and hung.
hayst4ck
No. No this is completely wrong framing.
Law needs to be enforced.
It's not enough to be against, that's what the Iranians did and it created a power vacuum filled by people worse than what they had. You must be for something.
There are still oaths to the constitution, but these people need mandate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)) to act.
anotherhue
I weep for the loss dignity, of law, of belief that tomorrow brings.
They are bound by your consent, you are not bound by their fear.
system7rocks
Right here.
We are in a crisis.
rich_sasha
Indeed - but isn't the court decision, as per TFA, a step in the right direction? Courts are slow but if they grind in the right direction, they get there.
Americans don't have much experience of this kind of tug of war (good for you). So far Trump hasn't faced any difficulties yet. Courts haven't kicked in, economy is steady, no external shocks and the tariff stuff hasn't percolated down to Main Street. It's easy to be a populist.
The hard stuff starts when the combined noose of court action, domestic discontent and external shocks really starts to bite, and there's still hope courts will retain their independence.
ndsipa_pomu
If they move so slowly that they take over four years to deal with an insurrection attempt, then they are effectively not working as intended
pjc50
Don't forget that a NY court directly enabled this by convicting the President of misuse of campaign funds and then applying zero sentence.
rich_sasha
I can see why you say so, and it is a concern, equally if you assume that courts are slow and work eventually, that's what it will look like on the happy trajectory of law being enforced.
If you assume US is now irredeemably fucked forever, you might as well stop venting. But nothing actually is forever. Much, much worse Soviet rule in Europe lasted 45 years. I still hold out that populism in the US will be over much sooner.
myflash13
Any law has only been as good as the people enforcing it, and this has always been the case in every country and every time period. You are delusional if you think that a piece of paper (i.e the “Law”) has any power whatsoever. When has “your status as citizen” ever protected you? Only when the people in power like you. Remember when the Obama administration ordered a extrajudicial killing of an American citizen by drone strike?
n4r9
Are you talking about Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Aw...
Obama approved a policy of targeted killing, which killed an American bystander when targeting an Egyptian citizen. That's very different to "ordered an extra judicial killing".
pjc50
That's still very much ordering a mob hit, not a judicial process. The Egyptian citizen didn't get due process either.
So much of this stuff comes from the war on terror. It's all extended Guantanamo. The movie creation of a category of bad guys so bad that they can't be afforded court process and instead are murdered on the basis of secret "evidence".
reed1234
It definitely seems to be heading that way but I think it's premature to label it a constitutional crisis. It's only one part of the picture. The Trump admin has abided by court orders before and continues to do so, though sometimes reluctantly. The judicial branch is still trying to resolve the conflict by ruling contempt of court. If this incident doesn't get resolved and the Supreme Court rules on it and Trump ignores that ruling, for example, maybe that would be a full blown constitutional crisis. I think scope matters too.
That doesn't mean that the incident isn't concerning. But I think we should be careful to incite false panic which could cause distrust. Save that panic for the real constitutional crisis brewing.
DannyBee
Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them.
There is some unfortunate precedent that allows this. At the time, the ruling was not really that consequential, but obviously, much more so now.
My general view is that pardon power was not really intended to extend to things which are fundamental to the function of another co-equal branch. It was meant to be federal crimes. In the end, Madison/et al felt that impeachment would suffice to protect from pardon abuse.
Contempt of this kind is not really a federal crime - it was considered part of the inherent powers of a court, but there is a statute that now covers it (18 USC 401), so it is unfortunately considered a federal crime and thus pardonable.
So when trump gets pissed off or whatever and pardons whoever gets held in contempt, that's when it's basically a crisis. Because at that point it just means they don't actually have to care. They will just abuse this legal loophole and declare that everything is actually okay, and they have done nothing wrong.
There are other ways, of course, it may become one, but that one seems the most likely path to me at the moment.
ropable
I continue to be astounded that the ability of the US president to pardon someone of a criminal conviction exists. It seems like such a blatant contradiction of the separation of powers.
hayst4ck
> Lawyer here - the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them.
This already happened in Melendres v. Arpaio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Joe_Arpaio
On August 25, 2017, President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court, a misdemeanor.
AnimalMuppet
> the true consitutional crisis will likely come when the judge holds someone in criminal contempt, and trump pardons them.
Or federal agents refuse to arrest them.
arunabha
Have they? I believe they still haven't followed the supreme Court order in the return of Garcia and that was a unanimous decision.
bamboozled
It definitely seems to be heading that way but I think it's premature to label it a constitutional crisis.
I guess it will be one when it's too late?
jrflowers
I like this reasoning. It is like suggesting that people ignore speed advisory signs because they’ll probably be able to slam on the brakes once they make contact with another car
fjfaase
No, it is not small. I am really surprised that no one has been arrested yet who has been involved with this kipnapping of people. If Donald Trump is sanctioning this kipnapping, he is involved as well and should be arrested as well. That he has not been arrested yet, shows that he is above the law.
reed1234
That is the next step AFTER contempt of court.
trhway
>That he has not been arrested yet, shows that he is above the law.
That is your perfect summary of the "unitary executive" which in the past was called even shorter - the King. It has already been decided by Supreme Court - he can't be prosecuted for anything he does as President. And for his subordinates doing his bidding, even if it is illegal, he would write pardons (he may even write pre-pardons like Biden did for Fauci). Thus no constitutional crisis because both things - no prosecution and the pardons - are according to the Constitution.
A commentary on the current Trump situation i heard from the Russian opposition: democracy requires constant maintenance by the people while with autocracy the people are freed from that burden.
hayst4ck
If you're in a building, when should you pull the fire alarm? When you smell smoke? When you see smoke? When smoke bellows? When a door is hot to the touch? Only once you see flame?
If an arsonist threatened to burn down your house, should you only call the police once the house is on fire? Is it possible by taking action earlier you could prevent disaster and loss of well being.
The people who wrote the plan this administration is following said: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."[1] The threat has been credibly made and they appear to be successfully carrying it out with minimal forceful resistance.
People who study Fascism, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, Russia, and Eastern Europe are fleeing the country including Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder.[2]
Trump has stated he wished he had Hitler's generals.[3]
A second in command of the United States armed forces as well as America's top military advisor have both called him a threat to the constitution. [4][5]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/heritage-foun... [2] https://archive.is/jb23b -- https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/the-fascism-expert-at-... [3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/12/mark-milley... [5] https://archive.is/d6f9J -- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-m...
reed1234
There is definitely cause to sound the alarm, but I didn’t think it’s a full blown constitutional crisis. It’s one district judge against one action by the administration. That doesn’t mean ignore court orders is acceptable and there should be backlash. However, I view a constitutional crisis in this case as more of universal contempt of court. Maybe that is just a semantic argument but this seems to be a discussion about semantics.
null
null
null
pjmlp
In a dictorship doesn't matter what the judge thinks, which is the unfortunate state of affairs, it appears the US citzens have yet to realise who is in power.
If it was another small country, the rest of the world would probably ignore what is currently happening in USA.
However it isn't a small country, rather one of the major countries and world powers, hence everyone gets hurt when failing to learn from history.
silisili
It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario.
You have three branches, for checks and balances, and gave one of them command of the entire US military. It seems not so much a stretch of imagination that that one may go rogue one day.
garrettgarcia
No piece of paper can protect a people from enslaving themselves if they are determined to.
jemmyw
> and gave one of them command of the entire US military
The US didn't have a military and resisted having a standing army until WWI.
bamboozled
The point still stands though ? At some point , the president become “commander in chief”
rkagerer
If you split the armies up between them, that would invite civil war.
Maybe they figured if things get too bad, officers of good conscience would stem the madness and have some political/legal cover from the other 1-2 branches? Eg. If a president tried to give orders to the military after being impeached and removed, it's doubtful they'd be followed.
silisili
One may assume.
The problem then is compounded by the fact the president picks the secdef, and is more or less able to fire anyone showing an ounce of 'disloyalty', as we've seen happen in recent weeks. Twice if memory serves me right.
So all but the very dumbest would curate their military leaders before attempting boldness.
pjmlp
That never works, see the dictorships along the history, most folks fall back into the "I was following orders" excuse, because as it happens, if they refuse there is another one with no problem with "I was following orders" that will put them into place, regardless of the form.
pjc50
Hence the Allies imposed a constitution on Germany in which there is an individual obligation on military personnel to uphold the constitution over following orders. Not perfect but a useful countermeasure.
quadragenarian
It's very difficult if not impossible to design a system that allows for a madman to be in charge, because to do so, the system would have to severely curtail the executive's powers which would render him or her useless. The tacit assumption has always been that the voters would not select a madman to run a complex system but here we are.
mschuster91
> It's always seemed weird to me that the founding fathers designed this system without thinking what would happen in such a scenario.
The thing is, no political system is foolproof and free of issues. But the US and the UK are about the only major countries in the world that didn't experience a forced reboot of some sorts - wars, revolutions, secessions, whatever - that brought an update of the constitution and legal system with it. Everyone else, however, did and learned from the issues that they and other countries had experienced in the meantime.
By now, the US is running on the same system for over 238 years. Yes, there have been some updates and amendments, but the fundamental assumptions are still the same stuff from centuries past, when virtually instant, global communication and transport of goods and people wasn't even thinkable.
hayst4ck
They absolutely thought about it. They plainly stated it in the country's founding document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The founding fathers were big fans of the philosophy of John Locke and his social contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
Our founding father's were very very liberal and strongly believed in a consent based government which implies the idea of revoking consent. When a government starts acting in ways you cannot consent to, like invading Canada or Greenland, robbing people of due process, preventing trade, and refusing to be bound by law, they had a very clear answer. You can find many Jeffersonian quotes about this very idea that many young Americans hear from their fathers and grandfathers, sadly many of those once young Americans have been corrupted by fox news.
The writer of the declaration of independence and third president of the united states chose "Rebellion unto tyranny is obedience to god," as a motto on his personal seal: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...
pjc50
> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
People asked, at the time, if that applied to women or black people, and after considerable argument concluded that the answer was "no". From that stems a lot of America's problems.
hayst4ck
Yep. Social programs and taxes were reduced under Reagan to prevent "welfare queens" from abusing the system. Many of the "poor whites" would have also benefited from those very same social programs. Rich people who were taxed less were able to spend that money consolidating power and weakening the government making the government less capable of regulating that very power consolidation. Power compounded and now we have oligarchs. Eventually they purchased citizens united from the supreme court "legitimating" their money as valid political power in a democracy.
rat87
Theoretically the electoral college was supposed to prevent guys like Trump from becoming president. Isn't that ironic?
mdp2021
> Isn't that ironic
It was badly engineered.
And it was overly confident on trust over the course of events and human nature - while you are obliged to do the opposite.
pjc50
Wasn't it established to prevent de-segregation? Three-fifths compromise and all that?
mdp2021
Meanwhile,
# El Salvador rejects US senator's plea to free wrongly deported migrant
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/el-salvador-rejects-us...
> [Senator] Van Hollen[, who represents Abrego Garcia's home state of Maryland,] said he had asked Vice President Felix Ulloa ... why Abrego Garcia was still locked up in the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) if he had committed no crime and El Salvador had no evidence that he was a member of the street gang MS-13. // "His answer was that the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador, to keep him at CECOT"
> Bukele said during a White House visit on Monday he did not have the power to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. // Trump told reporters he did not have the authority to intervene, leaving the man in limbo
koonsolo
April 19 https://www.fiftyfifty.one/
No excuses.
sjsdaiuasgdia
Absolutely. Now is the time to get off the couch and be vocal. Don't depend on others to push back. We all need to pitch in.
rchaud
Reminiscent of Stalin's utterance to Churchill at Yalta about not risking the pope's displeasure about Soviet resettlement plans for Polish Catholics: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
Today in America, that could be rephrased as "The Courts? How many loosely organized, non-uniformed paramilitaries do they have?"
greatgib
Imagine if we sentence the assholes officials that did not respect the court order to some time in jail in the Venezuela. That would teach them a real lesson in my opinion!
fzeroracer
The fact remains that every single American should be opposed to this. If the admin can freely deport someone who was here legally and with proper papers and ignore their habeas corpus rights then there is nothing stopping them from doing so to US citizens. Once you accept that rights no longer matter, you are giving up your own rights and the rights of your fellow Americans.
This is THE line in the sand. Either you agree that people have rights afforded to them by the constitution or you are a fascist. And there is no mincing words on this.
addandsubtract
The line and goalposts have been moved so many times, they will just continue to be moved. The White House spokesperson is already saying Kilmar is an MS-13 gang member as ruled by some secret ICE court. People will take is as gospel and legitimize his "deportation". There is no more line that people will stand behind until it's too late.
phtrivier
Horrible as it may sound, I'm not sure this is the court case that has the most chances of brining people on the judge's "side".
(Don't get me wrong, I know there should not be "sides" when talking about the rule of law.)
But here, Trump can play the "tribal" card to his base very easily (I'm expecting a variation of "non white woke judges are once again defending dangerous illegal gang members immigrants against hard working white Americans, this is a witch hunt, fight !")
I think the average republican voter won't care. We already know they don't care about document mishandling, cyber security, sharing war plans, gutting science, etc... They used to care about sex and religion, but don't any more. However, we know they care about kids.
Is there a lawsuit brewing about harm done by the trump administration to kids of white, non immigrants, conservative, affluent, christian, devouts, mainstream and influencial Americans ?
(That being said, I was very surprised to read that the SCOTUS itself confirmed Trump should not have deported at least one of those people [1].)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20250410235416/https://www.cnbc....
thinkingemote
> Is there a lawsuit brewing about harm done by the trump administration to kids of white, non immigrants, conservative, affluent, christian, devouts, mainstream and influencial Americans ?
Interesting. In effect I think you are asking how the opposition should appeal to the supporters.
One way would be as you suggest to angle the message towards their identity, their group affiliation. This would work for the groups you suggest but this would a) only strengthen group identities that are being targeted and b) weaken the oppositions beliefs in their own groups. The opposition views politics as groups of people with characteristics at fight with each other. The election showed that for supporters the hard identity groupings are, at best that softer than before and at worst don't actually exist in reality.
A more effective argument would lead to the opposition using the belief system of their target. For example "All people have equality and valuable personhood and illegal actions damage this inherent value". This is basically the classical liberal mindset based on Christian values. But this isn't really the mindset of those in opposition while they continue to view the world as being run by power between conflicting identity groups. They believe that people are not equal, that equity is more important, that people belong to groups with inherent characteristics of varying levels of power, and that to solve issues the power needs to move between groups.
In other words, yes, an appeal to the group identities of the supporters will probably work for some but it will strengthen their group identity (increased race-nationalism), and the supporters actually cover a much wider range than the identities you give. An alternative appeal to the values of the supporters would work much better but would lead to a weakening of the oppositions own beliefs. Looking at it from a religion lens: the opposition cannot use Christian appeals to morality while they reject Christianity.
"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves." Enders Game
phtrivier
> Interesting. In effect I think you are asking how the opposition should appeal to the supporters.
Exactly. The opposition has to realize that they are outnumbered, at the moment ; but this is not a static or permanent things.
By definition, every majority hangs on "swing voters", and is ousted when the swing voters decide to swing again.
"Appealing to your base" is how you win primaries ; if you continue beyond that, and insist on "purity", "support 100% of our causes, or you're a facist", while the other side has a "big tent" strategy, then you only alienate potential supporters, and opposition is going to be long.
(Caveat: of course, this assumes pretty "normal" conditions where elections happen fairly, on a regular basis, etc...)
Also, about the role of "kids" in those discussion, one side obviously knows how to do it _very_ well: [1]
pjc50
> Trump can play the "tribal" card to his base very easily
Well, yes. It's the Pinochet situation; I'm sure the majority of white Americans can be propaganda'd into supporting having dissidents thrown out of helicopters.
> harm done by the trump administration to kids of white, non immigrants, conservative, affluent, christian, devouts, mainstream and influencial Americans
The whole point of a fascist setup with personal rule is that those people will get almost instantly exempted from any of this stuff happening to them. Whether that's by the discretion of agents on the ground or as soon as it reaches the media. And including in cases where they've committed actual crimes.
tstrimple
> However, we know they care about kids.
This is just one more in a long string of lies. They absolutely do not care about kids unless it's about their right to marry them[1]. Or watch passively as they die to easily preventable diseases[2]. Or go out of their way to deny them access to food[3].
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/wyoming-ending-child-marriage-spark...
[2]: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/20/texas-measles-family...
[3]: https://newrepublic.com/post/173668/republicans-declare-bann...
phtrivier
I meant they care about _their_ kids.
They don't fear their kids will be married in Wyoming, or part of mennonites, or poor.
They're terrified that their kids could turn gay, or be raped in the bathroom by a trans men, or be denied a scholarship because some other diverse kid is getting it.
Are those fear rational ? I don't know.
Is one side much better at stoking such fear than the other ? I do know.
Which side is going to keep winning until the other side gets it's act together, if it ever gets a chance ? You bet I have my opinions...
FireBeyond
> But here, Trump can play the "tribal" card to his base very easily (I'm expecting a variation of "non white woke judges are once again defending dangerous illegal gang members immigrants against hard working white Americans, this is a witch hunt, fight !")
Just today (yesterday?) they're already doing this - the Press Secretary paraded a mom whose daughter was murdered by an undocumented immigrant and said "this is why we're doing this, for people like her", completely ignoring the small detail that this current person is not accused, suspected, or convicted of murdering anyone.
SV_BubbleTime
[flagged]
alphabettsy
The man in question wasn’t here illegally. If there’s no due process of any kind to determine legal status it doesn’t matter anyway.
ty6853
His legal status was unambiguously deportable. To anywhere but el salvador. An administration with half a brain would have just brought the dude back for 5 seconds and rerouted him to the border on the Guatemala side with a 'walk over there to go home' for some sort of miniscule favor to Guatemala and mission accomplished.
garrettgarcia
I just checked the statute and the 2019 ruling and was surprised to discover that you are correct.
2019 Ruling: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/1/1/abrego-gar... Referenced statute: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014... Statutes on where an alien may be deported to: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
SV_BubbleTime
This is such an odd hill to die on.
The dude at one point at least a wife abusing gang member, and indisputably an here illegally when he was given deportation orders he ignored.
I get that orange man is bad and must be opposed at all costs and conditions… but seriously, this is so strange that people are willing to go to bat for this guy.
I’m not joking at all, TDS might be real.
reed1234
If the president doesn't abide by the courts that's a constitutional crisis, a fundamental problem. Maybe this one instance isn't enough to say that the Trump admin won't abide by the courts, but it's a start. Immigration is not the issue either. It's about the 3 equal branches of government and how one branch is trying to discredit the other. The issue isn't about public perception. The issue is about how the US government will function if the constitution is ignored by the Executive branch.
lurquer
> Immigration is not the issue either. It's about the 3 equal branches of government and how one branch is trying to discredit the other.
Which branch is guilty of this? It’s far more frequent for a rogue district judge fo overstep its authority, is it not? They seem to get reversed quite often.
takeda
The way things work is that if the judge oversteps you appeal, but you are still bound by the ruling unless higher court overrides it.
You can't just say you don't like the ruling and ignore it.
garrettgarcia
The executive.
jauntywundrkind
The admin's ever increasing desperate shrillness is making somewhat of a standoff. He's gone from a gang member to a human-smuggling terrorist gang leader real fast. While also being an apprentice steelworker, supporting his wife & her kids from a previous marriage?
The admin is absolutely over the top with lies deceit & no good. Unwilling to be at all reasonable at any point. They are desperate to make sure no one ever has a chance to make them look like the clown car full of incompetents with no one but syccophantic pathetic mouthy yes men that they are.
But the admin is destined to eat shit again and again. You can't just disappear people cleanly & conveniently; even sending them into an awful concentration camp where no one can hear from them ever won't hide the lies & insanity these monsters spew.
ty6853
There is 0% chance in my mind that they would dig in like this unless the guy is dead, bukele is demanding a ransom to fix it, or something really bad happened there. There is no rational reason for the administration to endure this, especially since they can easily just blame the return on the bleeding heart judges.
jauntywundrkind
The admin demonstrates very little rational reason. Demanding a purge of American history, banning words from research, insisting private colleges control student speech, end so called DEI programs, and demanding to install their own crony shits in the faculty... The list goes on and on with madness that is beyond reason.
The reason to be a pig headed totalitarian mind-controlling gaslighting bully over this particular man is because being a bully requires putting on a strong front, requires avoiding or besting challenges. Alas, this admin is a bully staring down the Constitution and all America.
garrettgarcia
> There is no rational reason for the administration to endure this
Endure? They caused this. The reason is because they don't think that enough people will care about the fate of one foreigner to hold Trump accountable. He's counting on the people not understanding or caring at all about the rule of law, and he may be right. Plenty of commenters here don't.
reed1234
The Trump admin doesn't admit when they are wrong.
ty6853
[flagged]
foogazi
> and is trying to shake down Trump or later more empathetic administration as part of the deal to release them.
remember Manuel Noriega ? This guy is NOT shaking anyone down
ty6853
From my time in central America, it is a top down shakedown operation for literally anything and everything. Very pragmatic people really. They will profit both ways, coming and going. That's the key thing the senator from Maryland forgot when he thought he could reason with them from a sense of justice.
They're going to want favors or money. I knew why the senator failed as soon as he said it, he should have talked to literally anyone with family in a former Spanish colony before he went down there.
ranger_danger
I'm not sure what you're implying that he could be "shaking down" Trump for, but I think Bukele already knows they imprison innocent people... it has been reported that they have released at least 8,000 of them in the last 3 years, which also seems to contradict the often cited claim that "nobody ever leaves" CECOT.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocent...
ty6853
Bukele is extremely intelligent. His service is underpriced, based off memos only $20k / person / year and in a nearly brand new maximum security prison. I sincerely think he may have known just how stupidly the US would execute this and will come prepared with demands for their release -- secretly and in a way that we will not find out. Even if he has to wait for the next administration. He knows our courts and much of the public will put politicians under fire for this.
w0de0
To the other respondent’s point about Noriega, a central american autocrat cannot “shakedown” the American government. The balance of force is entirely in the gringos’ favor - if they choose to use it. If Bukele refuses, it’s simply because this is what Trump wishes him to do. Bush I _invaded_ Panama to enforce a district court’s arrest warrant.
Without rule of law no other issue matters.
You think you are a citizen today because you've always been a citizen, you have papers to prove it. It's never even been questioned. What if those papers get destroyed? What if the officer interpreting your papers is employed by someone who doesn't like you because you're disobedient. Without rule of law your status as a citizen doesn't protect you. Without a functioning judiciary capable of providing consequences to those who violate rule of law, you have no one to appeal to.
This administration complains about single judges restricting their actions. That should literally terrify you. The judges are not stopping the administration, they are ruling that the law is stopping the administration. When the administration says it is judges stopping it, it is claiming that there is no law, only the actions of loyal or disobedient men.
We are in a constitutional crisis. We are effectively lawless. Right now, we cannot depend on the law to restrict powerful people's actions. We have no way to predict what is possible for someone with a gun who is loyal to the president to do without consequences and therefore no way to act as if the law protects us.