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 -
There seems to be a big problem in the fact that the only reason that Abrego is in El Salvador is the United States government, of its own accord, sent him there. It’s not a case of him flying to El Salvador for vacation and being picked up in the commission of a crime (which happened to a WNBA player who flew to Russia and had drugs on her person during a custom inspection). It’s also not a case of an American in another country taking up arms against our country. Abrego, had the government not shipped him to El Salvador would be living in Maryland and raising his kids quietly. I’m not sure about the state of tge law here, but at least in the moral sense, if the US government is tge reason he’s in that prison, then there’s a good reason to think a judge can order tge government to provide due process and bring him back to face a judge in America. I’d even find it acceptable to send a judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer to El Salvador to have tge hearing there.
Given he illegally entered the US and is a Salvadoran citizen why shouldn’t the US govt be able to send him back to his native country?
Furthermore why wouldn’t this logic extend to any extradited foreign national who experienced conditions he / she didn’t like once returned to their home country?
Because black letter US law prohibited it. An immigration judge issued a withholding of removal as regarded Abrego Garcia and El Salvador. If the Trump administration wanted to get that withholding removed there is a legal process, that they did not follow, to do that. The regional ICE field director submitted a sworn statement that his removal was unlawful. The government's own lawyer admitted it in a hearing before the judge. Whatever you think ought to be the case as a policy matter, the law straightforwardly forbade the Trump admin's actions.
What law specifically?
8 USC 1231(b)(3)(A). An immigration judge, using the Attorney General's delegated authority, found Abrego Garcia would be threatened if removed to El Salvador and granted a withholding a removal. There is not even an allegation by the government or anyone else that they followed any part of the procedure for revising this decision before they removed him. See also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.
That's not a law. You're stretching.
You want to sat precedent and a judgment, sure.
This is why things like the Supreme Court exists.
The U.S. Code is, quite literally, the law of the land.
A judge made a interpretation. Other parts of the justice system disagrees.
This isn't nearly as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.
Please read the rest of my comment
The rest of your comment doesn’t make sense!
@Gillitrut gave you the U.S. law which governs this situation, the act of Congress which established it, and a Supreme Court case specifying that yes, §1231 applies.
What “other parts” disagree?
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
More options
Context Copy link