This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That is not the argument. The argument is that if they deport people without due process and then once they're deported, claim they have no jurisdiction, then there is nothing stopping that from happening to American citizens. The argument is not that there is no difference between Americans and non-Americans. The argument is these deportations, specifically, can happen to Americans as well as non-Americans.
Suppose someone pointed out that Americans can have heart attacks just like non-Americans. Your argument is analogous to saying that this amounts to saying there is no meaningful difference between Americans and non-Americans. Just because two things are similar in one respect, that doesn't make them similar in all respects.
The problem is not that there is no legal obstacle. The problem is that there is no practical obstacle. It's not a slippery slope argument. They admittedly deported him by accident without any due process. There is literally nothing to prevent that from happening to an American citizen. It would be a slippery slope argument if they were saying they would target American citizens next. But the problem is that they are deporting people without regard to their legal status.
It doesn't matter if they are two morally distinct categories if there is no due process to determine under which category a given person falls. What do you even mean by morally distinct categories? I understand they are distinct legal categories, but to say they are morally distinct suggests they have different moral worth based on their citizenship, which strikes me as callous and absurd.
The US government is paying El Salvador to take, imprison, and abuse, not only its own citizens, but Venezuelan citizens as well. Of course there is a limit to what the US government should be obligated to do prevent such abuse, but it is totally reasonable to ask that they stop spending resources make the abuse happen for no benefit. The US government's treatment of its citizens (or non-citizens for that matter) is not actually unconstrained by law, but even if it were, that would not excuse its taking advantage of that fact to abuse people. One thing I find so shocking about this is, setting aside the legal questions of its responsibilities, the US government seems to have no desire to correct what it admits was a mistake. I don't understand why they are even taking up the position that they are taking, regardless of its legal merits.
I'm highly skeptical of this, but even if true, then the US government should not be deporting people to countries where it knows that people will be sent to prison without charge, nor should it be considering sending American convicts to prison in foreign countries. It's one thing to deport illegal El Salvadorans immigrants to El Salvador. It's another to deport citizens of other countries, legally resident in the US, who could be sent to a number of other countries or kept in the US. It's another to do this when it's known that they will be sent to a torture prison filled with gang members without charge. It's another to pay the El Salvadoran government to do this. It's yet another to invite them to come to the US from a safe third country and then send them to the El Salvadoran torture prison.
If you are going to argue for separation of powers, you should remember that the whole point of a democratically elected president is to avoid tyranny and to have certain powers reserved to an institution that represents the will of the people. They should be held to some kind of moral standard, if not a legal one. The point of the separation of powers is not to give carte blanche to the executive branch to do whatever it wants in its area of jurisdiction.
This is a bad system though. The US is supposed to follow the rule of law, not mob rule. That's the reason there are courts. That's the reason the law can only be changed through the legislature.
I know it's not a legal document, but I'll quote the declaration of the independence:
This is clearly inconsistent with the principle that some people are fair game to be lured into the country and then kidnapped and sent to torture prisons. The founding philosophy of the United States does not consider natural rights to be dependent on citizenship or physical location. They belong to all people. You will not get near-univeral agreement that the US government exists to deem 96% of the world's population to be without rights and free to be abused should they make the mistake of entering the reach of the US government.
See this comment in response to this point.
Whatever one may think about universal rights in an abstract philosophical sense, the fact remains that the US government is not an all-powerful deity sitting above humanity in judgement thereof, but is a collection of finite human beings who live in a particular time and place and have only a limited capacity to impose their will on the world. When the US goes around the world trying to spread democracy and human rights by force, it has generally not been very successful. It's not inconsistent to condemn human rights abuses abroad while acknowledging that the scope of the US government and its legal system ought to be limited to its citizens only.
But, returning to earth, it seems that Bukele's policies are widely approved by the people of El Salvador. On what basis can the American government (or, still less, an American judge) deny them?
Legally - not just morally - the US government's legal system is not limited to its citizens. Non-US citizens have rights in the US and the US prosecutes people outside of its borders, US citizens and non-US citizens alike.
On the basis that they are cruel and immoral. Popularity is not a justification. Moreover, if something is popular in the US and unpopular in El Salvador, it's popular in the two places considered together, since the US has 50 times El Salvador's population. If that shouldn't imply that the US gets to decide what happens in El Salvador, neither should the popularity of any given policy in either country justify the mistreatment of any minority there that objects.
But more importantly, you are ignoring the fact that the US government is paying El Salvador to imprison people that it is unnecessarily sending to El Salvador. It can stop doing either of these things at any time, yet it refuses.
The fact that the US is not all powerful is not an excuse for neglecting all moral and legal responsibilities to anyone who isn't a US citizen. The US government is not even trying to undo its mistakes. It would be one thing if the US government were taking all reasonable steps to undo the harm it has done to the people it has sent to El Salvador. Instead, it is doing everything it can to achieve the opposite.
We have Trump and Bukele sitting in a room together, amicably, with Bukele telling the press he can't force Trump to take any his prisoners and Trump telling the press he can't force Bukele to release any of his prisoners. Obviously, between the two of them, there exists the power to bring the prisoners to the US. There is no bona fide attempt on either of their parts to solve the problem. Everything you have said are excuses for subjecting people to inhumane treatment, not actual justifications for it.
Do you think Bukele’s policies were wrong?
Yes
I think you are evil in that case. For decades ES was a dangerous place run by gangs. Bukele was able to change that so now the average person can live a normal life. People aren’t being murdered left and right. They aren’t being extorted.
It seems incontrovertible to me that life is better in ES for the average person due to Bukele’s policies. So it would seem the argument is either: (1) violating so called due process is so bad that we’d rather society be a complete disaster or (2) the very few (ie probably less than 0.1%) innocently caught in the net via the policies are worth more than having a functioning society. I think we already reject the Blackstone formula in practice and while I’m willing to tolerate some process to protect the innocent it isn’t infinite and particular facts may argue against.
Now Bukele over time may turn into a negative authoritarian and at that time if criticize him.
It's been three years. The emergency for which their rights were suspended is long over. Why can't they start giving these people trials to determine if they belong in prison? Why don't they have habeas corpus? Why do they need to experience such high levels of abuse while in prison?
How could you possibly know what that number is?
That time is now.
https://apnews.com/article/bukele-salvador-crackdown-price-gouging-7e99374c444a81a4009ec09d94857d25
More options
Context Copy link
If the alleged gang members had been treated more humanely (e. g. at or above the Geneva-Convention standards for POWs, long-term plan for their release following the dismantlement of the gangs), one would have been able to make the argument that the Salvadoran Government's actions were justified.
The actual conditions to which the alleged gang members have been subjected would not have been justified even had they been convicted beyond any doubt in regular trials, and were definitely not justified given the looser standards of evidence allowed.
Ok, ES tries a different, more humane method, BUT, for every gang murder above the current base rate, one Humane Prisons Advocate gets executed. You first.
Would you accept this deal?
No. Your proposal is based on two assumptions which I reject:
the assumption that detaining gang members under the same standard as invading soldiers would significantly increase the murder rate, and
the assumption those arguing against human-rights violations are somehow responsible for anything that can be attributed to not committing them.
There are lines that one should not cross though the heavens fall, and those arguing against crossing those lines do not thereby assume culpability for the actions of others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? These gang members made ES a living hell for the people. Why do we have such empathy for evil people but effectively zero empathy for good people who had to endure the wrongs brought about by evil people?
ES is a relatively poor country. They tried for decades applying “human rights” and all it got them was a country run by gangs. Now the average person can actually live a normal decent life. And the rate of mistake on gang members is incredibly low (thankfully for ES the gang members decided to cover themselves in specific tats making their appearance obvious).
I just don’t see the moral argument that ES ought to treat these gang members okay.
I have empathy for the victims of the gangs; that's why I don't insist that detaining the alleged gang members at all was absolutely unjustifiable. However, once they are in custody, their not being subjected to inhumane conditions does not harm anyone, nor allow them to harm others; the same applies with captured enemy troops, thus the Geneva Conventions.
Which is why one could make the argument that they couldn't afford the normal standards of criminal trials. It does not have any relevance to how people are treated in custody.
The argument is that
They are human beings, made B'tzelem Elohim, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
If you establish a category of 'people it is justifiable for the State to torture', you create the temptation for others to expand that category to include persons or groups whose existence they have long resented.
More options
Context Copy link
the identification with evil is a recurring theme that surges periodically on social media, be it orcs in D&D, Bugs in starship troopers or Demons in Devil May Cry. At some point it becomes obvious that we don't share any more fundamental values that would enable coexistance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given that he was an El Salvadoran national, where else could he be removed to? Are there other countries stepping up to accept deportees on El Salvador's behalf? If the answer is a legal catch-22 where he gets to stay despite being eligible for deportation, then I have no choice but to reject the legitimacy of the process that produces that outcome.
He would have been eligible, if ICE had had its own immigration courts reassess the threat to him; the fuckup is that they didn't.
If the courts are ICE's own, this emphasizes rather than undercuts the legal catch-22 characterization. Then this is not an issue of lack of authorities or fundamental human rights, but merely misfiled paperwork. If the issue is merely misfiled paperwork, then it may be a fuckup but hardly the most egregious or the most damaging of the last half decade, or even the last half year.
Note- I do buy into to the Court's position on the process issues. I am speaking instead on the basis of the political reaction.
The political reaction is, of course, devoid of nuance. However, as was pointed out in many replies to the top level commenter, Trump and Bukele refusing to remedy the problem, despite it being very easy to do so, sets a genuinely dangerous precedent.
The district court is ignoring the SCOTUS ruling so I don’t see the problem.
In what way? Source?
My source is the opinion. If you read the SCOTUS opinion closely they didn’t say the ruling required removal to the US; instead they said facilitate removal from ES and then treat the case as if he was deported to that specific country. They then said she needed to carefully draw the ruling to not be over road or transgress Art II. It screamed “write a more narrow order.”
The district judge just said yolo I was proven correct. That isn’t true.
To what are you referring?
More options
Context Copy link
Here's what the SCOTUS opinion said, emphasis mine:
Kind of vague, right? Maybe the SCOTUS meant the Government should only facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia, not to facilitate his return.
However, this was the wording of the original district court order that the SCOTUS deemed to be proper in the "facilitate" sense:
It seems like the SCOTUS decision basically said the order to "facilitate" was proper, but the "effectuate" part needs to be clarified.
Now, the new order from the district court no longer talks about effectuate, but instead focuses solely on the facilitate part, namely:
Granted, the SCOTUS ruling was vague, probably intentionally so for political reasons and to get all 9 justices onboard, but the district court did not pull this interpretation out of its ass, and it's not directly opposing the SCOTUS.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Setting the side the question of how this fiasco, itself, affected his safety in El Salvador, I don't see a procedural problem with returning him to the USA, for the purposes of the "Article III" District Court investigating ICE compliance with court orders, followed by ICE having its "Administrative" immigration court reassess Garcia's original claim of threats to him in El Salvador and, if they no longer applied, re-deporting him. Bringing him back, so that ICE could follow the correct process to re-deport him would be embarrassing to ICE, but it's their fuckup, so...
Seems more embarrassing to your faction. "Look at this pointless waste of time and resources that we had to do because Other Team only cares about abusing the rules to help illegal alien gang members."
Do you really think this would generally serve to increase respect for norms around due process?
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but he's not under U.S. jurisdiction. I don't see that we have any obligation to bust him out of prison over the objection of El Salvador.
Inasmuch as El Salvador is acting as an agent of the USA's Executive branch, they should be willing to release him (were Trump and Bukele acting in good faith). It's not as though he was released as a free man, then arrested by local police for unrelated reasons.
It is not. El Salvador is a sovereign country, mate, not a Yankee colony.
Is or isn't El Salvador being paid by the US government to imprison non-El Savadorians [Edit: not] accused (never mind convicted) of crime in El Salvador? Garcia happens to be El Salvadorian and Bukele now says he is self-motivated to imprison him, but ICE sent him to an El Salvadorian prison because ICE wanted to deport him, not because El Salvador requested his extradition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm surprised it's legal to physically remove someone from the US without a court hearing right before they get shoved onto a plane to at least confirm identity and that a legal basis exists to deport them.
I would expect the absence of this to make the judiciary pretty mad and for ICE agents to be found in contempt if they keep doing it after admonishment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In which case the proper remedy is legislation, not unilateral action.
More options
Context Copy link
There are other countries in the world with provisions for accepting asylum seekers. Besides, Trump was already paying El Salvador to take him and the other deportees; if all else fail you could pay a different country to take the guy.
For the alternative to exist the alternative must be identifiable. Who else has agreed to take payment for American deportations?
I don't think it's reasonable to ask for a list of people who've agreed to an offer that hasn't been made. But I'd be surprised if Bukele was the only guy in the world willing to say yes. The US is very rich, most countries are very poor. I'm not saying "send him to Belgium", here. Send him to Nigeria or something. Bribing the relevant Nigerian authorities would probably cost less than the plane flight itself.
That's odd of you. On both ends.
Truly your understanding of the global south shines. If only the Europeans had such business acumen as you in their attempts.
What makes you think El Salvador is the only country in the world willing to take the deal? Why would it be? This is a wild take to me.
That would probably because you have wild takes on the reasonableness of justifying your own claims or knowing deportation politics in Africa (or Latin America).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well I think everyone accepts that this particular person was here illegally and subject to deportation. The argument is on where he was supposed to removed to. That seems very different from your concern.
No, you'd be amazed at the number of people who think he was legally here, including a right to work.
Wait, was he not granted a work permit? That is what I read, e.g., here
More options
Context Copy link
Which probably explains the fear—I don’t have the due process concerns for people that are factually illegals.
We can’t as a country have a massive amount of process to remove people who willfully and easily crossed the border. I guess you can’t make it really painful to be an illegal but that will just make life more difficult for people who ought to be here.
In short, some process is due illegals but I don’t think it ought to be significant.
'Extensive' instead of 'significant', perhaps?
A chance to contest expulsion on grounds of citizenship isn't necessarily an extensive process (check key record databases), but it is significant.
The current state seems to be years of litigation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That just isn’t true.
More options
Context Copy link
Specifically, the argument is whether he was supposed to be removed to El Salvador. This whole thing could have been avoided if they sent him somewhere else with no torture-prisons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, anything could accidentally happen to anyone, sure. Do we abolish the police because police could accidentally arrest you? Or accidentally even kill you? Nope
We have probable cause, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a quick and fair trial, which all serve to prevent such mistakes and to minimize their harms. The US government has a set up a system where there is no due process nor recourse for the people it deports, citizens or not.
Again, sounds like an issue for the legislature or executive branch to figure out
The courts have no jurisdiction on foreign matters. If you don’t like it, take it up with the constitution or perhaps El Salvadors government?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We did spend an awful lot of time and effort making it harder for them to do so, yeah? From English common law to bodycams. Incentives matter, and the incentives for the federal government to avoid deporting citizens ought to be pretty strong!
The about-face on that one has been darkly humorous.
I’m not up to date on it. Was there a pivot after BLM? Or are you referring to the popularity of bodycam footage among a subset of the right wing?
Yeah, bodycams got a boost as one of the top 10 recommendations of Campaign Zero. On their archived website you can find that they've changed their mind because it doesn't reduce use of force (indeed, it tends to justify it) and mention that they previously tracked it as a positive move, but it's not mentioned at all on the new website.
The popularity of bodycam footage on the right is directly correlated to the turn against it on the left. Both are, frankly, gross.
What’s gross about it?
From the right, I find reveling in violence, particularly for Outgroup reasons, off-putting. Bodycams are a useful tool, but treating the footage as entertainment isn't healthy.
From the left, I find such clear rejection of reality disturbing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Good thing that didn’t happen then
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, but we might want to reform it if they kept accidentally killing people, then saying "yeah, we weren't supposed to do that, sorry. we won't make any reparations or apologize or nothing, though. yeah, it'll probably happen again. no, we don't care".
Sure, reform it through the legislative branch then. The courts have no jurisdiction.
But beware what you wish for. Making it even harder to deport people when you’re already 20+ million behind in the docket is no bueno senior (although maybe that’s what you’re hoping for)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the police accidentally arrest you, they are supposed to let you out. If they accidentally kill you, they may have to pay out a settlement if they lose a court case. If you get deported when you shouldn't have been, apparently there's no takebacks and no remedy of any kind and none are even possible in theory.
If the police were allowed to shoot anyone they wanted with zero consequences, that would be bad.
Sounds like a problem for the legislative or executive branch to solve! These judges need to stand back and stand down
The executive branch deported this guy despite the fact that the executive branch said the guy can't be deported, which according to the law passed by the legislative branch, should have prevented him from being deported.
The entire function of the judiciary is to redress grievances of this kind.
Actually the judicial branch has no jurisdiction here, as they themselves have admitted
The Supreme Court certainly did not say that. They said the District Court overstepped, not that they had no jurisdiction at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They did solve it. The order prohibiting removal to El Salvador wasn't an equitable remedy the judge made up on the spot; it was pursuant to US law. If the legislative branch wants to change the law, then fine, but until they do that, Trump should be making every reasonable effort to get the guy back.
Courts have admitted they can’t compel the administration on foreign matters. It’s up to El Salvador to release him now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link