@faul_sname comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025

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.

Dean Flairless 3d ago · Edited 3d ago

Following from @Quantumfreakonomic's post yesterday on the judge who was arrested for trying to sneak an illegal migrant out of a courthouse to avoid ICE, that media storm may be prompting a counterstory on the latest Trump immigration outrage to be outraged about.

Reuters: Two-year-old US citizen appears to have been deported 'with no meaningful process'

New York Times: 2-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Deported ‘With No Meaningful Process,’ Judge Suspects

CBS News: Judge demands answers on whether 2-year-old U.S. citizen was deported to Honduras

Washington Post: Three U.S. citizens, ages 2, 4 and 7, swiftly deported from Louisiana

Rolling Stone: Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer

CNN: Federal judge says 2-year-old US citizen was deported with mother to Honduras

Yes, the new scandal for the new week, just in time to replace coverage of the somewhat embarrassing judge from last week, now presents a heroic judge objecting to the deportation of US children. While multiple cases are there, the focus of the current not-at-all coordinate push focuses on the 2-year old from Louisana.

Admittedly, the CNN article did make the mistake of letting the headline reveal some of the possible nuance as to 'why'. Being the only headline to mention 'mother' was what started this little media dive.

The key sequence of events from the CBS article include-

According to a petition filed Thursday by Trish Mack, a friend of child's mother, the girl, her 11-year-old sister and mother were taken into custody Tuesday morning while attending a routine check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at an ICE office in New Orleans. The mother had attended meetings like this regularly for four years, often bringing her daughters with her. They were taken to the meeting by the girl's father, the petition reads.

After being detained, the mother and her two daughters were transported to an ICE field office in New Orleans, court documents state. When the father arrived at that office, ICE officers gave him papers stating that the mother "was under their custody," documents read, and that she "would call him soon."

That day, an attorney for the family contacted ICE and informed authorities that the girl was a U.S. citizen, the petition said, and also emailed a copy of the girl's U.S. birth certificate to ICE.

But that night, an ICE agent called the father and informed him that "they were going to deport his partner and daughters," documents read.

On Wednesday, an ICE agent spoke with the family's attorney, and "refused to honor a request to release" the girl "to her custodian, stating that it was not needed because" she "was already with her mother," court documents read.

Some of the potentially relevant context, not all of which was in the CBS article, and which different organizations provide different framings for.

On some differences in filings and timings-

CBS

When Doughty, appointed to the bench by President Trump during his first term, sought Friday afternoon to arrange a phone call with the mother of the girl, Justice Department lawyers informed him that a call with the child's mother "would not be possible because she (and presumably VML) had just been released in Honduras." The girl is identified in court documents as VML.

CNN

Lawyers for the family filed an emergency petition Thursday, asking the court to order the child’s “immediate release” by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, saying they “lack any statutory or constitutional authority” to detain her as a US citizen, according to the petition.

Washington Post

Lawyers representing the father of the 2-year-old U.S. citizen who was deported, identified as V.M.L. in court documents, filed an emergency petition in the Western District of Louisiana on Thursday seeking her release. The child was put on a plane to Honduras the next morning before the court opened.

In an effort to halt the deportation of the two daughters, the father on Tuesday filed for a temporary transfer of legal custody, which under Louisiana law would give his sister-in-law, a U.S. citizen who resides in Baton Rouge, custody of both.

CNN and the Washington Post did not raise the legal custody issue raised on Tuesday, which frames later decisions. The Post in particular removes the child from the context of the mother in the plane to Honduras, treating the 2-year-old citizen as the only relevant individual on the plane as opposed to the mother and older sibling.

CBS did raise the custody case, but does not raise the Thursday petition for immediate release that could be understood in the custody decision.

Only CBS raises that the court session sought Thursday afternoon occurs on Friday afternoon. The Washington Post emphasizes the time of the departure flight as before court could open, insinuating without explicitly claiming a motive for the timing of the flight. No context is provided by anyone on what time the flight actually was, what time the court was, or the other normal times of possible flights to Honduras from the local airport are.

Additionally, no media actually characterizes the relationships between mother, father, and sister-in-law. There's no claim that the father and mother are married. Therefore, there is only an insinuation that the 'sister-in-law' is meaningfully related to the mother in a sense that would normally sway custody fights.

On the basis of the child's removal, for sources that did so-

The immigration status of the girl's father, mother and sister was unclear. The girl was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in January 2023, according to the filing.

"The parent made the decision to take the child with them to Honduras. It is common that parents want to be removed with their children," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to CBS News Saturday.

The government is not disputing the immigration status of any of the three children. Instead, officials contend that the undocumented mothers opted to take their citizen children with them back to Honduras. In their court filing, Justice Department lawyers attached a note they say was written by V.M.L.’s mother saying that she was taking the child with her to Honduras.

The federal government said in court documents the mother wrote in a letter she “will bring my daughter … with me to Honduras.”

“Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with someone the parent designates. In this case, the parent stated they wanted to be removed with the children,” the official said.

“V.M.L. (the child) is not at substantial risk of irreparable harm if kept with her lawful custodian mother,” the government said.

Different sources provide different strengths of agency to the mother. CBS only attribute a mother motive via government statement after the fact, and makes no claim of the mother herself expressing an interest. CNN reports that the government claims the mother wrote a note, but does not mention the note itself was included in court submissions. Washington Post notes that there was an actual note attached, but disassociates veracity via 'they say' to open door for doubt.

Only CNN directly addresses a claimed government policy of asking the migrant parent their preference.

On the status of the father-

Justice Department lawyers argued that “the man claiming to be V.M.L.'s father” had failed to prove his identity to the government despite requests that he present himself to ICE agents, adding that he had also “demonstrated considerable hesitation” regarding the inquiries into his immigration status. The man’s lawyers included V.M.L.’s birth certificate in their fillings, which shows she was born in Baton Rouge and lists the names of both her mother and father.

The father then moved to give provisional custody of his two daughters to his sister-in-law, a US citizen who lives in Baton Rouge, and the mandate was notarized in Louisiana, the documents say.

The petition alleges ICE refused to honor the father’s request to release V.M.L. to the sister-in-law, stating “it was not needed” because the child was already with her mother, and informed the father he would be taken into custody if he tried to pick her up.

The government said the “man claiming to be V.M.L.’s father” has not presented or identified himself to ICE despite requests to do so, the court documents say.

CBS News

The immigration status of the girl's father, mother and sister was unclear.

The ICE agent further said that the "father could try to pick her up, but that he would also be taken into custody."

The Washington Post makes no reference to the legal custody attempt by the father, and thus why ICE might request he present himself to them regardless of immigration status. CNN and CBS do acknowledge the custody shift to the sister-in-law, but do not elaborate why the father could not request custody for himself. CBS alludes that the father's status is 'unclear,' while CNN establishes a threat (custody) but not basis for the threat (possible immigrant status himself).

No media covers the implication of an unverified man requesting custody of a child be revoked from the undisputed mother to another woman of unclear relation.

On the Judge's Comments-

A federal judge says a 2-year-old Louisiana girl and U.S. citizen may have been deported to Honduras this week with her mother and 11-year-old sister without due process, according to court documents obtained by CBS News. In an order Friday, Judge Terry Doughty, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, wrote there was a "strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process."

Doughty set a May 16 court hearing to investigate his “strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.” The order did not call for the girl’s return or recommend any recourse for the family.

“In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the government just deported a US citizen with no meaningful process,” Judge Doughty said in the order, a hearing is scheduled on May 16 in Monroe, Louisiana.

The judge added, “It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S. citizen,” citing a 2012 deportation case.

The federal government, Doughty said, “contends this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her … But the court doesn’t know that.”

Only CNN quotes the opening section of the Judge's sentence and interest. Both CBS and the Washington Post begins their quote after removing the opening clause, creating a stronger statement.

Trump First Term Child Separation Scandal

Human Rights Watch: Trump’s Cruel Separation Policy Has Not Ended

...I kid, that one is from 2018.

No media references, raises, or otherwise brings attention to the criticisms to the first term policy of detaining or deporting adult illegal migrants without their children.

In summary, if it this starts permutating on the interwebs next week-

The two-year-old american citizen case involves

A larger family(?) of non-citizens migrants with a singular birthright-citizenship daughter

The non-citizen attributed include the mother who was deported, an 11-year-old-daughter also deported but not claimed to be a US citizen, and the father of unclear-nationality
The family was allowed to remain under Biden-era Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), which allows individuals to remain in their communities while undergoing immigration proceedings
ISAP is for illegal migrants, not legal migrant proceedings, as the Biden administration was practicing a remote-application program for processing immigration proceedings pre-arrival, and violating that was a basis of deportation
There is no allegation that ISAP concluded with a permanent legal status for the family

The American citizen is/was an archetypical 'anchor baby' context without being called such

Born in Baton Rouge, LA in January 2023
Which means conception mid-2022, after Biden-era migration policies had become apparent / gained reputation
The mother either migrated while pregnant, or conceived after arrival.
The primary legal concern focus raised around this deportation case center around the child's due process rights, not the mother's or sister's
Unclear legal / policy / political relevance of the sister-in-law to the migrant decisions

More broadly, the headline/surface narratives conflate child deportation with child-custody considerations

Narratives characterize deportation of the 2-year old child, as opposed to children accompanying deported parents Minimal engagement of process / standards for parents keeping young children with them during processing
Articles generally avoid acknowledging government policy of offering parents a chance; not mentioned, as opposed to claims it was violated
General avoidance of parental custody rights and legal expectations of deporting non-citizen adults with citizen minor. For example
- If a mother can choose to take an American citizen child with them
- If a non-citizen father should be deferred to when requesting custody of children to be taken from the mother to someone else
- If the custody dispute between non-citizens must be adjudicated before deportation of the primary parent with their child

Finally- Is there basis for legitimate concern in this scandal?

Yes.

If you thought the lead-up was a the media is totally lying about everything trope, that was deliberate. It was to make a point about why I expect this scandal to hook some and be dismissed by others.

For people who are hawkish on illegal immigration, this case is not your friend. There is a lot of red meat here that could be uncovered- potentially unmarried family unit, a concerned father of uncertain status who in the first minute of establishing contact tries to convey a litigation strategy, child-custody defaults being reversed- but there is a hook that can work against you. And that hook is the disruption of what most people would consider a due process right, even if deportation legalism is different from a criminal court process.

For people upset about ICE and due process, this coverage is also not your friend. The framings- and the not-very-deep undercurrents that go against the framing- will give a basis to dismiss concern as motivated. The children-in-cage's and child-separation critiques are not going to be forgotten. The fact that not separating children from their deported parents is now a basis of criticism is going to undercut criticims of both. The media's rush to present a concerned father is going to run into discrediting disappointing revelations.

But the propaganda doesn't mean there is only propaganda. Even if it's not what the coverage generators wants you to be concerned about, because- again- you need to piece together relevant events not tied together in any single framing.

Why was Doughty asking for a phone call with the mother?

That [Tuesday] night, the girl’s father was allowed to speak with her mother for only a minute before an ICE agent ended the call, lawyers contend. Lawyers say the man did not get the chance to speak to his partner or child again until after they were released in Honduras.

Why did the Tuesday night phone call with the mother (allegedly) get stopped by ICE after only a minute?

Before the father could finish providing the mother with contact information for their attorneys, he heard the ICE officer “take the phone from her and hang up the call,” according to the petition.

This is a claim. It is a claim made by someone with an interest in claiming it regardless of whether it is true or not. It is also a valid basis for concern, independent of deportation of the mother or custody decisions of her child.

If true, this would indicate that communication between the woman and potential legal representation was deliberately disrupted. How long it was disrupted is a relevant interest, particularly if other legal advice might have changed her mind of letting her newborn stay with someone else.

This brings relevant questions that may or may not have been precluded.

Was the sister-in-law a valid close relation of the mother under existing custody precedent? (It is not claimed. Only that the father requested.)
Was the mother interested / aware of the attempt at custody revocation at the father's request? (It is not claimed. Only that the mother signed an intent to keep her children.)
Were the father's lawyers denied access to contact the mother? (It is not claimed. Only that the father did not speak with her until post-deportation.)
Was the mother denied access to any lawyers she was entitled to? (It is not claimed. Only that the lawyers are characterized as the father's or the family's, not if they contacted her.)
Was the mother, as opposed to the US citizen child, denied due process deportable aliens are entitled to? (It is not claimed. Only that a specific phone call was ended.)

Is there any legal barrier preventing the 2-year-old US citizen from returning to the US, beyond 'typical' international legal custody issues?

It is not claimed. But then, no major media coverage has expressed interest in that paradigm either.

Frustration.

Context

faul_sname Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science. Dean 3d ago

Can the father or SIL not go pick the 2 year old up from Honduras at a later date if that's what the mother and father decide they want to do? The 2 year old has citizenship - while an unnecessary flight to Honduras with a 2 year old is obnoxious it's not exactly an irreparable harm - there are flights from Honduras to the US every day of the week, and I'm sure a gofundme could finance a few hundred dollars of plane tickets given this level of publicity.

Of course, ICE trying to interfere with the mother's ability to contact legal counsel is, if true, super concerning.

The_Nybbler In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball. faul_sname 2d ago

Can the father or SIL not go pick the 2 year old up from Honduras at a later date if that's what the mother and father decide they want to do?

If the father were legally in the United States, sure. It seems likely he is not, so if he leaves the country he will find it difficult to come back.

faul_sname Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science. The_Nybbler 2d ago

It sounds like the SIL is legally in the united states. With notarized parental consent letters on both sides and the 2 year old's passport I'd be surprised if there was any major issue in having the SIL pick up the kid and bring her back to the US to dad.

I doubt the notarized consent would be easy to get from mom, but that's because this sounds to me like a custody battle.

Dean Flairless faul_sname 2d ago

That depends on the Sister-in-Law's actual relationship to the mother, not the father.

The SIL and the mother do not necessarily have any legally relevant relationship. This is where the implication of the mother and father never being characterized as married potentially matters.

If the father's SIL is in fact the mother's sister, then as you say it could be legally simple to reverse if the parties are in agreement. That is not the same as administratively simple- I'd be surprised if the child has a passport- but

If the sister-in-law is a SIL due to the father marrying someone else- a currently undisclosed woman who would be unsympathetic to the narrative- then the analogy would be more akin to an adoption than familial custody.

faul_sname Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science. Dean 2d ago

The SIL's job in this case is "accompany the kid on the plane ride from mom to dad after both of them write consent letters and get them notarized". As long as both parents do that I expect the airline will be fine with it, and once the kid lands in the US she can't be denied entry into the US.

I don't expect the mom to agree to that, to be clear.

HereAndGone faul_sname 2d ago

I think what is complicating this is that it's not the usual "who gets custody of the children after a divorce" or "who gets custody when the children are removed because of neglect or abuse" type case.

If the parents aren't married and the kids are living with the mother, and the mother and older sister and the father are not US citizens/have no legal right to be in the country, then handing over custody (temporary or longer) to the citizen sister-in-law is a different kettle of fish.

Dean Flairless faul_sname 2d ago · Edited 2d ago

The SIL's job in this case is "accompany the kid on the plane ride from mom to dad after both of them write consent letters and get them notarized".

Not quite. Remember- the father was not asking for custody for himself. The father was asking for custody to be transferred to his sister-in-law. And this sister-in-law who is supposed to be taking both escort and legal custody has no established relationship to the mother, only the father.

A notary might be able to help the plane ride in abstract, but a notary cannot transfer formal or de facto legal custody from a mother to a potentially unrelated citizen of another country. Since the purpose of the plane flight is to remove the mother's custody of the child, after she (reportedly) indicated to the US government she wanted to retain custody...

Since the purpose of the plane flight is to remove the mother's custody of the child, after she (reportedly) indicated to the US government she wanted to retain custody

Then the mother will probably not sign a notarized consent letter, yes.

My point was that if both parents decided they wanted the kid to grow up in the US with the SIL that is still something they could arrange. Emphasis on the word "if".

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats