wlxd
17d ago
For one, had he been given any kind of notice and chance to challenge his removal, one imagines he could have raised the issue of his procedurally-valid and as-yet-not-revoked withholding.
One could imagine a process that would have prevented the issue, but none such process was due him, and even if there was, as I keep saying, a mistake could have happened after that process was completed. For example, imagine he got a notice he is getting deported to Venezuela, tried to appeal it, failed, and then on the deportation day there is a mix up and he accidentally gets put on a bus that gets people onto a plane to El Salvador.
One can also look at someone detained and removed in the middle of the night and conclude that this is not enough process.
Sure, but in my opinion, the process is already very excessive. For example, I think that the standard procedure should be that people who never had valid immigration to begin with, should only get to appeal their deportation after already being deported.
wlxd
19d ago
I think where we disagree is that this particular error was incompetence of such degree as to be a violation of due process (all but conceded by the government anyway)
No: this was a violation of Garcia’s right, but it was not a due process violation. Whether error is egregious or not is orthogonal to whether it’s a due process violation.
and that violations of this kind (ignorance of a duly entered legal order that they had a legal duty to know about) are the kind of things that can be prevented.
Most of them, certainly. My point is that there is a trade off here between error rate and your effectiveness. The more efforts you take to prevent any and all errors, the harder it will be to actually get the job done. Democrats understand this very well: that’s how they effectively banished almost all of death penalty in US. That’s why I oppose excessive concern for due process, because I know that it’s not principled stance, but rather instrumental, only to achieve a specific nefarious political purpose.
One doesn't need to think that every error can be prevented to believe that such a glaringly obvious one can be.
Yes, but even so, the glaringly obvious mistakes will nevertheless occasionally happen, and sometimes there will be little legal remedy available too. I’m willing to consider proposals to make errors less likely, but only if they are paired with proposals to make the whole process faster and more effective. Of course, Democrats won’t entertain deals like that.
wlxd
19d ago
Americans are in the right to want to deport tens of millions of illegals, and excessive concern for the rights of illegals make it meaningfully more difficult to enforce the right to remove them.
wlxd
20d ago
At the very least, the executive ought to dissolve its own order.
No, because they were not aware of that order. They should have, but they weren’t. That’s why it was a mistake. If they were aware of this this order, they would have either followed it and deported him elsewhere, or seeked dissolution before deporting him to El Salvador. Your retort only makes sense under assumption that they knew about the order but chose to ignore it nevertheless. In my previous post I explicitly assumed this to not be the case, and said that if it was the case, then the situation and the analysis is completely different.
There is no amount of due process that will prevent the government from not following its own orders?
Yes, exactly, because after following all the due legal process, someone can still make a mistake. Think about my example of sheriff looking at the calendar wrong. I’m not saying that what they did was right. It was wrong. However, it was not a wrong that could have been prevented by scheduled due process.
I feel like "there is a reliable central database run by a group half as competent as the dude responsible for delivering burritos" isn't even an amount of due process, it's a basic measure of government competence.
I actually think that the US government does not have nearly enough databases of its citizens and present non-citizens, but yes, I fully agree that what happened here was incompetence. The point is, incompetence will occasionally happen, due process cannot and will not prevent all incompetence-induced errors, and it is not possible to prevent every case of incompetence before the fact with some pre-defined process without significantly compromising effectiveness in executing basic functions.
If anything, a kick in the ass might actually help them realize that in order to execute their core function, they first need to achieve operational competence.
Maybe, but I suspect that what happened here is that they wanted to actually execute their core function before activist judges tarpit them, and rushed things so much that they missed an order that someone failed to input properly into database back in 2019, or something like that. This is not meant to imply that they didn’t do anything wrong, it’s just operating in hostile legal environment will cause mistake rate to be higher.
wlxd
20d ago
The problem is not with the withholding order. The problem is that apparently everyone expects infinite process before you’re actually able to execute any removal.
In the Garcia case, the government made a mistake by not complying with that withholding offer (I’ll assume that it was indeed a mistake, and not deliberate flouting of the order, because otherwise the below argument doesn’t apply). Liberals, moderates, and centrists seem to believe that the outcome at hand means that the Garcia’s right to due process was not met, and district and some appellate judges seem to believe that too. There is an implication here that if Garcia’s due process rights were met, he would not have been deported to El Salvador. This is not so. There is no amount of due process that will prevent government from ever making mistakes of this sort, and excessive efforts of judiciary and activists using the judiciary to prevent mistakes meaningfully detract from the Executive’s ability to execute its core function.
The simple fact is that there is absolutely no existing process that could have prevented this mistake. Garcia had final, confirmed on appeal order to be removed. He had no further ability to appeal it. If the government removed him to a different country, that would have been it. This is how the process works, not just in immigration, but in every case.
For example, imagine you’re a tenant who stopped paying rent. Landlord goes through legal process to get you evicted, you appeal, but since you’re clearly in the wrong, ultimately you get a final eviction order. Accordingly, you get a notice from sheriff’s office that you’ll get evicted on May 1st, approved by court. However, on April 30th, the sheriff looks at the calendar wrong, and thinks that your eviction date is today, and evicts you. A clear mistake, in violation of court order to remove you on May 1st. However, is it a violation of your due process? No, there was absolutely no judicial process that you were not given access to, that would have prevented your too early eviction. What is the legal remedy that you should be accorded after the fact? I actually don’t know. I would actually be fine with no remedy or damages at all: the government does extremely detrimental things to people all the time that have no remedy whatsoever, the sovereign/qualified immunity and all that, but if you insisted on some damages, I’d accept the sheriff reimbursing you for any actual cost caused by too early eviction, like eg. one night hotel stay.
Now, imagine a judge ordering the sheriff to kick the landlord out of the freshly vacated home, and effectuate your return to the home that you were about to get evicted from anyway. It just so happens that you were also a wanted fugitive on federal charges, and as you were getting evicted by state officers, federal officers use the opportunity to arrest you and throw you in federal prison. The judge then require the state sheriff to somehow “facilitate” your release from federal prison, without specifying in any way whatsoever as to how exactly you are supposed to do it, or what that even means. Lastly, it issues a statewide injunction on any evictions unless you get one more hearing after final (already appealed) eviction order, with another ability to appeal the outcome of that hearing, to prevent additional future eviction mistakes.
Most people would see this as a mockery of justice, an excessive concern for the rights of someone who is clearly in the wrong, and meaningful making it even more difficult for people who are in the right to have their rights enforced. And yet, here we are.
wlxd
20d ago
The problem is not with these immigration “judges”, but with actual Article III judges like Boasberg or Xinis, who override the determinations of Article II examiners at will, making it effectively impossible to enforce law at scale. If every illegal gets Article III judiciary proceedings before finally getting removed, we will never be able to actually enforce the law. Imagine if military had to get a court decision before being able to kill an invading soldier.
wlxd
29d ago
Looking at this, I wonder if it’s not some kind of reverse rug pulling, where insiders buy on the dip, knowing reversal is coming.
More seriously, I wonder how aware Trump is that this constant flip flopping is destroying his ability to make credible threats in future.
wlxd
1mo ago
What this means in practice is that if talk to the perp, and you indicate or imply in any way whatsoever that he is expected to answer your questions, the conversation is now custodial interrogation, and if you don't mirandize the guy first, your case is fucked.
wlxd
1mo ago
Oh, we can continue applying the doctrine to illegal wiretaps just fine, that's not my problem with it. My problem is things like, if you fail to recite a specific magic incantation before your suspect confesses to the crime, you must disregard that confession.
wlxd
1mo ago
Can you explain how it is a problem? It's not immediately clear to me, and it's apparently not immediately clear to most of the legal systems around the world, given that they do not subscribe to the extensive application of this doctrine.
wlxd
1mo ago
The government has no responsibility to right wrongs in general. There are some specific laws that apply to some specific contexts, for example Federal Tort Claims Act (which would not apply here), but as a general matter, government enjoys sovereign immunity, which means that unless some specific law applies, it is under no obligation to compensate you if it wrongs you.
wlxd
1mo ago
Your analogy misses some key important points (e.g. the neighbor house party should be a strict invite only event, and you only got into it because you literally snuck through the window), but more importantly, the issue is not compensation for plane ticket. I'd be happy to give that guy $1000 for him to fuck off. He can buy plane ticket to US with it, but he will not be admitted into the country, because the US government is under no obligation whatsover to admit any noncitizens into the country.
wlxd
1mo ago
The fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine as applied in the US is pretty stupid. It is beyond retarded that good faith procedural errors can allow obviously guilty men go free. Most of the rest of the world does not have it, or does not have it to the same extent as US does.
wlxd
1mo ago
We can nitpick on what we mean by “visible”, but at the end of the day, that’s really not a high bar to meet. The only visible form of political expression I ever engaged in was anonymous posting on SSC/TheMotte. Most of my friends don’t do even that.
wlxd
1mo ago
They can, however, move out themselves and their stuff out of the blast radius, which actually does make a difference.
wlxd
1mo ago
It has only partly happened, which is even worse. We are full on papieren bitte, except where it would help deporting the illegals.
wlxd
1mo ago
Falsely claiming that you’re a US citizen to an ICE agent conducting a raid is a federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 1001). I suspect that ICE will have enough circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable belief that you’re lying, which will allow them to arrest you, and unless you help them in their investigation, you’ll be sitting in jail until they do in fact determine you lied. This is limited by detention capactity, of course.
wlxd
1mo ago
He is also claiming the right to do it in a way which would probably prevent a US citizen caught up accidentally getting relief through the courts.
That depends on what happens with them after they get deported. If they are set free in some foreign country, they can literally buy a plane ticket and come back here. Sure, they will not get a relief that will prevent them from getting detained and removed from the country in the first place, but I don’t see how this is relevant. It is perfectly normal and common to be able to get any relief only after illegal action of government has already been inflicted upon you. It really is not substantially different than getting illegally arrested and jailed: the government needs to take utmost care to avoid doing it, but when you are getting arrested, you cannot get court relief right there and then.
wlxd
1mo ago
This is true, but it’s also true that calling your recruiters to check up on status often does make a difference, and usually expedites the entire process. As anyone who has ever worked in any large company, pinging people regularly to update their status and nudge them towards doing or accelerating the work they owe you, is in fact a significant part of your work, and does make a difference. Recruiters/HR is no different, and pushing them does work.
wlxd
1mo ago
Only if all your friends also live within walking distance, which is unlikely in any case.
wlxd
1mo ago
Putting parking lot in the back makes little difference. It only matters if you’re already on the street with the front entrance. If you’re a block away, you need to cross the parking lot anyway.
More generally, without a car you are effectively disabled, in the literal sense: not fully able to participate in society in the same way the majority is. Most societies make some accommodations to the disabled, but there are real limits and trade offs involved. For example, people who have trouble walking (which in US is I suspect a bigger group than people without access to a car) typically appreciate a lot being able to drive right to their destination, and park right at the entry.
Point is, it is not clear to me why we should cater to your disability, to the detriment of the majority.
wlxd
1mo ago
It's easy being an AI advocate, I just have to wait a few weeks or months for the people doubting them to be proven wrong haha.
Often you don’t even need to wait, doubters often say things that are wrong already when they say it. Remember Gary Marcus? He was big a couple years back, but everyone learned to ignore him after basically everything he said was wrong.
wlxd
1mo ago
The LLM is still talking to the image generator. It just does so using native tokens and vectors instead of going through a text encoder layer in-between.
This is very confusingly stated. The second sentence is correct, but in the first one, it’s confusing to say that LLM is talking to image generator, because the LLM and the image generator are literally the same thing.
wlxd
2mo ago
They marry legal immigrants present in the US or marry foreigners outside the US.
You missed one option, that is, they marry illegal immigrants, but otherwise this my point: all family based immigration is downstream of previous immigration events.
Yes, legal immigration.
This is only true in the most literal sense, as illegal immigrants are not eligible for petitioning for family based immigration, but overall it misses my point: US citizens can and do petition for family based immigration for their illegally present parents, spouses, and siblings. There is a whole legal industry for that, just search Google for “green card for undocumented parents”, you’ll find many immigration law companies adveritising their services. If your spouse, parent or sibling did not enter unlawfully, but eg. overstayed their visa, there is hardly any legal issue preventing adjusting their status. Even if you entered unlawfully, all you need to do is sneak out of US, and then pretend you’ve never been here illegally; perfectly viable for many illegals who haven’t generated federal record of their presence.
You've provided no evidence of this.
Sorry, do you actually believe that people who enter or stay illegally are a complete dead end from family based immigration purposes, or are you just asking for evidence this to be obnoxious? The existence of the legal industry dedicated to legalizing parents and spouses is evidence. You can find many businesses that help with that in Google.
“Corruptly” there just means that she is doing that willfully, with improper purpose. It does not have anything to do with corruption as in misuse of the office. See eg this. This charge clearly applies given the allegations.
More options
Context Copy link