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 -
If the US, by claiming he is a gang member, has caused El Salvador to persecute him, I would say they have indeed provided the basis for a valid asylum claim. I am not sure if this is true if he actually is a gang member, but given that the two pieces of evidence are a confidential informant and Chicago Bulls themed clothing (which the US claims is characteristic of both TdA AND MS-13... aren't gangs supposed to use DIFFERENT "colors"), I don't think that's been shown to any reasonable standard of evidence.
Yes, this is just Trump having made a deal with El Salvador about paying them to imprison gang members for him, and some underling having to find some "gang members" to deport in a hurry. "Oh, that guy was accused of being a gang member by someone without any credibility? Whatever, it will have to do."
I wonder how long it will take for the real gang members (if there are any being deported) to wisen up to the fact that murdering an ICE agent (or just a random civilian bystander) will immensely improve their outcomes (if they survive the encounter). Then they get a nice long trial in the US. Spending 20 years on Uncle Sam's death row before being fried likely has a much better QALY balance than spending the rest of your life in some El Salvador megaprison.
(This might also explain the selection. "This guy is suspected to run the local MS-13 chapter. He is investigated for three gang shootings, rape and drug trafficking. Should we round him up?" -- "Nah, that one might go out fighting, and I am not getting paid enough to take bullets. Uhm, I mean we might need him as a witness for gang-related crime later. Look, that one is accused of having a five-year-old kid with his American wife, and also wearing some clothing reminiscent of gang colors. He is probably not even packing and will never believe that we will haul his ass to some El Salvador prison complex before we have him cuffed.")
Why? Is there something that would prevent the U.S. from deporting immediately and letting El Salvador prosecute the case?
I don’t think it’s out of the question that a judge could rule that deportation to the current El Salvador regime is a per se violation of the convention against torture.
More options
Context Copy link
6th Amendment:
Obviously the 6th Amendment does not apply if the government is not prosecuting them, and a deportation proceeding is not a criminal trial. Foreign nationals being tried by foreign courts have no 6th Amendment case with the U. S. Government.
The US government could deport an illegal immigrant without indicting them for crimes they are suspected to have committed while in the USA, but your question was if there is "something that would prevent the U.S. from deporting immediately and letting El Salvador prosecute the case" and the 6th Amendment is that thing.
Crimes committed abroad are often prosecuted domestically, murder is illegal in El Salvador so he can be deported and then tried there.
How often do you think? My understanding was that extraterritorial jurisdiction was exceptional, especially if the conduct could be prosecuted in the territorial jurisdiction it occurred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's the same thing, unless you believe that it is not possible for El Salvador to prosecute their national for a crime committed in the United States. I'm not an expert on Salvadoran law, but I would be very surprised if there was such a statutory limitation. The U. S. certainly has none.
I recommend you try to phrase future questions to the effect of "Why does this thing that never happens never happen" more carefully, because they're easily misunderstood, due to things that never happen having poor representation in vernacular speech. My initial reaction to this comment was that you were trolling me by phrasing question such that you could move the goalposts with plausible deniability, but I will make a final attempt to answer the question "Could the a country deport illegal immigrants, without trying them for crimes committed in that country, and, following their arrival in their home countries, could the deported person's home country try them for crimes committed in the other country?"
Yes.
However:
For obvious reasons, governments want to assert their authority to prosecute crime within their borders. (Whether ICE could deport a person in the custody of a state penal system is left as an exercise for the reader.)
For obvious reasons, governments generally don't want to assume the responsibility of policing conduct outside their borders. The exception is extraterritorial jurisdiction, and you'll note that most examples of it are exceptional, in that they're specific to extraterritorial problems.
For not-necessarily-obvious-but-easy-to-understand reasons, extraterritorial jurisdiction likely requires statutes being specifically written to allow it, depending on the country's legal structure. Courts and LEO need to have defined jurisdictions; at minimum, authority needs to be specifically assigned for extraterritorial crimes.
In many scenarios, at least one government would be acting against their interests.
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
He was declared a gang member in 2019, long before the El Salvador deal, so I don't think this is Trump needing to find people to fill up Salvadoran prisons.
Nothing seems to have been done about the claim in the time since, though. I think the idea is that the claim was made and logged but everyone had long deemed it to be a nothingburger; and it was dug up again when files were scoured to find the requisite number of people to deport.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link