I'm not going to make judgements on people who say that their life is in danger when I have zero actual facts just 'popular internet factoids' and administration propaganda that conflicts with the actual facts in the court case (they now are claiming he was a human trafficker and that the court order was illegal).
He proved to the immigration court that his life was in danger, to the point that the court ordered he not be removed to El Salvador. What's next, are you going to claim that court findings, experts in the field and based on hearings/evidence/etc, for criminals should be overridden by your gut feelings? Because of course all criminals claim they are innocent, so court rulings should be ignored? This is the friggen slippy slope people talked about. You see that right? Ignore the court order because populist government should have that power based on their feelings. Or because after violating the order the government claims the order was somehow not valid/illegal.
He didn't just make a claim, the US immigration court found his claim valid enough to issue a legally binding order that he can not be return to El Salvador. The President ignored the process for overturning that order, the President ignored the order itself, and sent this person not only to El Salvador, but to a prison solely housing the M13 members that the United States Immigration court found legally were a risk to this man's life.
I don't think you are bothering to read anything I've said. I've said over and over the court order should be followed, because the rule of law is essential and the court order must be followed regardless. I also think he's lying.
You are allowed to form your own opinions also, you don't just have to read a news article and then try your best to update your thoughts to conform to the daily talking points for whichever side you follow.
And I have said over and over that blanket judging people on at best second hand knowledge but mainly hearsay and assumptions is evil, and the root of evil. In society we have to setup systems and work to make those systems work, not place the burden of the systems imperfection on random people because of ltbarcly3's non-direct fact based feelings.
You went pretty low in your comment by the way. Really shows you operating out of your feelings. Which is understandable, we are all human. But also shows maybe you shouldn't be making life or death judgements of other people.
BTW I think our immigration system has been HEAVILY abused by Democrats to get immigration policies they can't any other way. That they exploit more conservative people like me's empathy to create a loophole. That doesn't mean I judge the people that came here and placed determination of their life in our system, I blame the Democrats, and I try to change the system. Not condemn random people caught up in that. I want change, but this is the absolutely wrong way to go about it. I don't want a soul crushing machine running my country. I want the USA I grew up loving, that my family sacrificed for. The shinning beacon on a hill. And I'm not for turning off that light just because it's hard. Having civil rights is hard and expensive and nuanced.
I will ALWAYS try to learn and incorporate new thinking/understanding of events. Not sure how that is a shortcoming. It's actually really hard and uncomfortable.
I'm not going low at all. If you actually read my comments:
I think:
- he's lying about being in danger, but I also say that is reasonable for him to lie and I would do the same thing without hesitation
- it's unjust, unfair, and cruel to deport him after half his life and entire adult life, and his wife and children here
- that legally he should *NOT* be deported while his deportation order is on hold because that is what the law says
- that legally he should (and probably would) eventually be deported since that is just what the law says and he was ordered to be deported already, and that is literally what 'temporary' implies (the rule of law cuts both ways)
- I never condemned the man or made any unfair assumptions about him. I certainly never said or implied at all that he was a criminal, that he had any relationship to any gang, that he should have been deported extra-legally and put in a foreign prison without trial, because that is all insane. I said his rights WERE violated, but specifically that his right to due process was not violated (he did have a trial already and lost). (Being returned to your home country is not a punishment and it doesn't deprive you of any rights, excepting if you have already become a citizen).
So my point, if I made it poorly, is that this individual being deported is not a legal injustice against him, most likely he should be deported under current law, and most likely he would have been deported in the next year or two in any case. The injustice here is that his deportation was carried out extra-legally and in defiance of the law and that the US is complicit (or really actively causing) humans to be jailed without due process or really any process.
That means that he was a father, that he was (or was not) a member of MS13, that he had (or didn't have) a job, that he was a nice man (or not a nice man), that he love (or hated) his mother, that his kids are honor students (or hoodlums) is all irrelevant and nobody should care about it in the context of what is going on. He was here illegally, but he was also legally allowed to stay for a little while longer. That any person was extra legally handed over to a foreign government with instructions and payment to imprison them without trial is beyond unacceptable.
I don't know what's low about any of that. It's very hard to comment in an online space on political issues because people, in general, do not use their ability to read and comprehend. They read the first 5 words, assume that the rest is either "good" or "bad" depending on whether it's leaning towards the opinion they read from whichever outlet conveys to them the talking points for their political party, and then they react by repeating those same talking points. If you have an opinion that is anything but repeating what one of the two approved opinions is that day people really fail to cope with that.
"you don't just have to read a news article and then try your best to update your thoughts to conform to the daily talking points" is going low.
"I think: - he's lying about being in danger" - this is the basic premise you have made this entire time. Yet you also continue to claim:
"I never condemned the man or made any unfair assumptions about him"
Your entire premise is a blanket judgement should be applied to people seeking asylum as to them being liars, based on 'because of course they are'. While I agree that there are strong incentives to lie, I don't use solely that incentive to then baseless claim 'he and all asylum seekers are lying' like you continue to do. We have immigration courts and people directly responsible for determining this better than you or I. They determined the threat to his life was real enough to put a stay on him being sent back to his home country even though they denied his asylum claim. My 'current days talking point' position is that in America we don't apply blanket assumptions like this, and that we have a system of rules, laws, courts, and judges that make those determination. A truly toxic position to hold today I guess because... something unrelated to current talking points? I've held this position my entire life. As did every single person around me. From conservative grandfathers that fought in WW2, to hippie parents, to teachers, to... basically everyone until recently. But I'm adopting the current day take?
I think 'all members of XYZ immigrant group are liars' is a horrible take, and has led us down bad paths in the past. Using that claim to bypass due process, in situations where people's actual lives are in danger, because the Constitution/due process/the American way is expensive and takes too long is a popular take/is too hard on the scale of an entire country full of people, I just don't share it.
I can't reply directly so I'll reply here:
It's not that they should be assumed to be liars, I never meant that.
It's that there is no reason to listen to what they say. Either they can provide evidence that they deserve asylum or not. Everyone would say they should get asylum.
If they were not in danger: they say they were in danger
If they were in danger: they say they were in danger
Since they say the same thing either way, it is pointless to even factor in what they say. Some people are telling the truth, some people are lying, they all say the same thing so what someone says has no information value.
When making the initial determination on whether to allow someone to stay in the country, they do not have to show evidence, they just have to make a credible claim, and about 85% of those claims are accepted. Then later they have to show evidence at their interview and hearing. Of the people who pass the bar for the initial claim about 90% are not actually granted asylum, but about 80% drop out of the system (although the numbers don't prove they were lying because there are other factors). So initially 85% are approved (like the person in question here) and then later only 10% of those people actually show sufficient evidence of a credible fear. This doesn't prove that most of them are lying, but of all the people that claim they are in danger to be allowed to enter/stay 90% don't back it up with evidence, and 80% don't even complete the process, which I think is very strong evidence that a substantial majority are lying (even if you give the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe 50% of them can't complete the process because they don't understand it, lack resources, etc, that is still 50% that were lying).
It's notable that during covid, when claiming you were in danger did not give you an easy way to enter the country immediately, people also stopped claiming they were in danger.
Finally, it is probably important to quantify what 'danger' actually means. Is it a 10% chance of being killed? 1%? 1/1000? Does going home have to be more dangerous than the transportation to get there? Does it have to be more dangerous than riding a motorcycle? The murder rate in El Salvador is currently lower than Baltimore, a LOT lower. It's beyond unreasonable to defer deportations to a place if it's safer than where the person is staying now.
You've said he's "almost certainly committing <criminal> perjury". Based solely on the category of immigrant that he is. I think that is abhorrent, un-American, and violates the Constitution. In the USA 'all men' are created equal, and our rights apply to 'people' not just 'citizens' (a class that the current regime now wants to redefine to not include natural born Americans, forget slippery slope we're now on a water slide).
You keep trying to justify your claim with 'we need to categorize/make determinations on these groups because reasons' but not engaging with that you think we should categorize a class of immigrants as perjures simply because of the class they fit in' because to do otherwise makes immigration policies hard/able to be abused'. We used to believe as a nation in the theory we would rather that 10 criminals go free if it prevents one innocent person from going to prison. I get it's hard, and it has negative impacts to follow our Constitution and what our nation believes in. It's so hard that people have had to die to secure those things. It's so hard that my grandfathers faced crippling life long injuries fighting for their belief in it in WW2. My understanding it's hard doesn't mean I think we should just throw it away. Blanket 'xyz people are criminal liars' has no place in the United States of America. Systems that are aware of the incentive to lie, sure. But that is why we have courts and a rule of law, not labels on entire groups of people. That Democrats allowed abuse doesn't mean we give up on what America is. You can keep giving me bullet points but your basic premise is so flawed to me they don't matter.
Imagine you were talking about the Chinese in the U.S. in the 1800s. You’d have the same kinds of bullet points,claims about fraud, about them being impossible to integrate, claims it just too many people, about systems being overwhelmed. That’s how we got the Chinese Exclusion Act. A whole race of people labeled suspect by default, stripped of legal protections, barred from citizenship, and assumed to be lying just to get in. It was wrong then, and it’s just as wrong now. Policies built on fear and group guilt erode everything we claim to stand for. If we don’t push back against that, we’re not protecting our country we’re abandoning it.
I'm going to keep it very simple for you:
I said I think it's unfair and cruel that he is being forced to leave at all. I think it's immoral. I also think he told the story that let him stay with his family rather than the truth, and I don't fault him if he did do that. Anyone would do that.
I think you should, for practice and because it would help you be a better person, try to have a disagreement with someone without thinking they must be racist. I think it would be new for you but I think it would be healthy to try it.
Remember when you said you didn't go low? Look at your last paragraph.
I don't think you are racist, I never called you racist, but I think what you are saying is wrong and is the type of group guilt assignment that has been used for very f'd up stuff in the past and not how we do things in the US. Again, your entire premise is he's lying because of the class he is in. That is the slippery slope that I am calling out. Your own words. You didn't judge him unfairly you say, you just said he committed criminal perjury based on your knowledge that he's a foreigner seeking asylum. I said that the system should be structured to recognize the incentives to lie, but we shouldn't judge people based on their class, you continued to say all foreigners seeking asylum are probably liars, especially your original example individual, based SOLELY on that he is a foreigner seeking asylum.
I explained my reasoning. And I even said I agreed that the Democrats have broken the system, and that the courts needed to be structured to account for the incentive to lie. But I didn't like classifying a group/class of people liars based on their class. 'All poor people steal because they are poor and have incentive' is basically what you are saying. 'All people in Alabama are dumb, Bob is from Alabama, Bob's dumb'. Nah, I refuse all of that, labeling a group, assigning a characteristic because Bob's a member of a group. I never just tried to shout you down saying 'racist', I responded in way too many words :)
And again you resort to the low, personal attacks. Super lame, basic internet dig you gave there too. Because I quoted your words back at you and I don't think in the USA we should classify groups as guilty.
You are calling me a racist and saying I'm somehow responsible for attacks on chinese people 100 years before I was born. It's so lazy and straw-man, you don't seem able to honestly engage with what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that if you can show that it is very likely that 99% of the people from Alabama are dumb (this is not true but for the sake of argument), and Bob is from Alabama, there's approximately a 99% chance that Bob is dumb if you don't know anything else about Bob to improve your estimate. This is just true, and it's obvious, and if you read what I said it's exactly how I framed it (he's very likely or almost certainly lying). This isn't because of class, or race, or age, or whether they are trans or whatever else.
One more time:
People come to the border or get caught in the US without a visa. If they say "I'm in danger" about 85% of them are allowed to stay in the US while their claim is processed. Of those people who stay, only 10% end up being approved. 10% are denied, and 80% don't show up for the interview, get arrested for something else, self deport, etc. So best case, if you trust our judges, half are not credible. Since the 20% that show up probably, on average, have the best cases it's a fairly safe bet that the 80% who don't show up wouldn't break 50/50, maybe more like 80/20. So 74% would be found not credible (10% who are denied with interview, and 80% of the 80% who don't show up), 26% credible. That's a pretty overwhelming majority who are not making an honest claim. But again, if we just go with the numbers we know, it's 50/50, half are lying (or if you prefer "making an incredible claim they are unable to support with plausible evidence").
No, I said that blanket judgements like you are making are what led to the US to write ahorant legislation against the Chinese, the closest parallel in our nation's history where language like yours have been used to talk about immigrants to reform the system, not some random strawman example. I'm have not said you support that. I said 'here is a very related example language similar to yours went down the slippery path I see your language could'. It's been nothing about you. Your pseudo-statistics are BS. We have immigrant courts/judges we don't use personal rough pseudo statistics to judge people as criminals (in this case criminal perjurer). Down your pseudo statistics path lies not only racism but vigilantism (citizens proving someone a criminal based on very weak premises) where the majority number of your 'statistics' zero actual finding is made only assumptions of guilt. I agree it's plausible that large numbers of asylum seekers are gaming the system. I agree the the Democrats probably facilitated abuse of the system because they can't get the immigration policies they want. I think it's bullshit and un-American to extend that to 'This random dude is a criminal perjeror' based on only that.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend my basic argument. I concede that there are incentives to lie and the system should account for that, but that we shouldn't label a class criminal perjurers because down that path lies nothing good. I've given you more response/good faith than you have me. You keep saying you haven't labeled this man anything but then call him a criminal perjurer and imply his grounds for being in the country are bullshit. But other than that, yeah, you haven't called him anything. All based on 'he sought asylum'.
You say 10% are approved, which matches Americas past 'We would rather 10 criminals go free than 1 innocent person imprisoned'. By your words it sounds like this is a part of America's thought about itself/it's character that you don't agree with. (Now talking about your personal judgement).
If half the people are lying, then half are criminal perjurers. I'm not labeling a class, I'm just believing what the numbers say.
You keep insisting that I'm making broad racist claims about a group of people, over and over.
You seem to think I have some secret agenda to support Trump or his policy, and you keep arguing as though arguing against that agenda is the same as arguing against what I'm saying. This is why I say you aren't honestly engaging and you are repeating talking points. I don't have a secret agenda, I'm a registered Democrat and I've never voted for a Republican as far as I can remember. I also think that most people claiming asylum are not being honest, because that's just what the information I have available clearly suggests.
You want to pick an arbitrarily impossible standard of evidence which is not reasonable and not even used in actual courts when evaluating whether testimony is credible or honest (that there is a criminal perjury conviction). People are caught lying in court every day, even when that's obvious and provable they are rarely (as in almost never) pursued for perjury charges.
Frankly at this point it's clear that you kindof agree with what I'm saying, that a lot of people lie in this process, and it's not the ground truth you are disputing but rather you want me to not say it because it might have consequences if we say things like this, but also you think the system needs to be reformed to address this problem, but also we shouldn't admit there's a problem.