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 -
You seem to be missing the point entirely. If they can grab a person and send them off to a foreign prison for life without the system of due process afforded to US citizens to do things like prove they're a citizen in court, then they can grab a citizen and send them off to a foreign prison too because that citizen will simply not be granted the due process they're "supposed" to be owed. And once the citizen is out of the country and in a foreign nation, the government shrugs and says "well we can't do anything, they're elsewhere not here, we made a mistake sending a citizen but oh well"
And they're already making mistakes mixing up citizens with illegal immigrants
It violates the very concept of habeas corpus, a fundamental of modern legal systems. If we can just One Easy Trick around the basic structure of freedom and civil liberty in the country, then we have a major problem.
And it's not like it's a conspiracy theory the Trump admin plans this One Easy Trick on citizens, they literally say they're planning it.
This equivocation on "due process" is a motte-and-bailey because the amount of process required to establish whether or not somebody is a citizen is far simpler than, and falls far short of, the due process (trial by jury, assistance of counsel, confrontation of witnesses, right to appeal, etc.) which is constitutionally required in criminal trials. The fact that Abrego Garcia is not a citizen (and is an illegal immigrant) has never been disputed by him or by anyone else, even though he has been through several administrative hearings (which, again, do not count as "due process" in the legal sense because of the lack of jury etc.) at which he could have presented proof of citizenship if he had it.
I will start to worry about my own safety and that of other US citizens if it comes out that the "administrative error" that led to Abrego Garcia being sent to El Salvador was one that was just as likely to have caught up an American citizen. However, that doesn't appear to be the case here. The government picked up a bunch of people from a list of deportation orders from immigration judges, not realizing that in Abrego Garcia's case the order specifically excluded El Salvador. If he were a citizen, no such order would've existed and so he would not have been deported.
Again correct me if I'm wrong (since this is not purely academic but a matter of immediate self-interest for me to know correctly one way or the other if I'm in danger of deportation) but this has the appearance of a software bug where immigrants listed this attorney's contact info as their own and so a message meant for them was instead sent to the attorney. I don't think there's any realistic chain of events by which this attorney ends up being deported because of this.
He was not even afforded this small amount of due process required to establish citizenship. He was not deported as the result of any hearing. The result of the hearings was that he won the right not to be deported. They deported him anyway, accidentally and illegally. If they accidentally deported a citizen, at what point would that citizen be able to prove his citizenship before leaving the country? The current system would not put that person in front of a judge before getting deported.
I don’t think that’s correct. He was precluded from being deported to ES. I don’t think that is the same as saying he can’t be deported but I’m not an immigration lawyer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Suppose that El Salvador decides he is rightfully imprisoned and doesn't feel like releasing him? How far do you think the court can go to mandate foreign policy to effect his return? Economic sanctions? Military blockade? War?
Minimally, it should be able to tell the president to at least ask El Salvador to release him and to stop paying to have him imprisoned.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see why that would happen, we have Art of the Deal 4Dchess Trump in charge now. He put an end to the war in Ukraine and Israel in the first day, certainly he can work out a great deal like by doing things like uh, let's see here ...not literally sending Bukele and El Salvador money to keep them locked up.
In any rule following administration, they would receive a court order like this and a 9-0 ruling from the SC and make a good faith effort. Like say, the same thing of maybe not continuing to funnel El Salvador money for the explicit purpose of not returning them. The court isn't asking them to do sanctions or war.
More options
Context Copy link
The Court doesn't need to decide hypothetical cases (and, indeed, is prohibited from doing so by Article III of the Constitution). The Court has to decide the instant case, where the prisoners are being held by El Salvador on the instructions and at the expense of the United States.
I was asking an interlocutor. They are not bound by judicial rules.
More options
Context Copy link
This is disputed, however; the administration claims the Tren de Aruaga prisoners are held on the instructions and at the expense of the United States, but the other prisoners are not.
What I don't understand here is that even if that were the case, what the hell kind of remedy can the court even order?
They don't have the power to tell Bukele to do a thing, and even if they order the administration to stop, that order is toothless.
I'm doubtful they can even seize the payments to El Salvador.
Can't they arrest people for contempt of court?
Them and what army? Are the bailiffs going to start a shooting war with the feds?
Presumably, the police would be expected to follow a court order and not prevent someone from being arrested.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The court can order the administration not to pay Bukele until he releases Garcia back to the US.
More options
Context Copy link
The judge can order El Salavdor to comply. If El Salvador fails to comply, start seizing Salvadoran assets in the United States. Seizure of foreign nations' assets in the United States has been done before.
That would truly be a constitutional crisis where Art III starts basically making foreign policy decisions?
More options
Context Copy link
What stops the president from writing more of those bullshit pardons like Biden did for unlimited and unknown crimes in several year blocks?
I don't think you can pardon a country.
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