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 -
I don't know how often. But I've read about it a few times in the news.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/supreme-court-kilmar-abrego-garcia-1.7507521
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuelan-brother-deported-el-salvador-family-looking-rcna202279
There are more, but these are the two I remember best.
Neither of the cases you posted involved legal immigrants.
The first one had a court order preventing his deportation. The second one was invited into the country to attend an immigration hearing.
Neither was a legal immigrant.
If they are in the country legally, they're legal immigrants. What are you talking about?
A court order to prevent deportation does not mean that you are in the country legally. When Kilmar Abrego Garcia entered the country in 2012, he did so illegally. The court order to return him to the US was only over due process concerns. It does not mean that some judge magically granted him citizenship and he is now in the country legally.
I'm not sure by what stretch of the imagination you assert that Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel was "invited into the country" for an immigration hearing. What he actually did was use the CBP One app to schedule an appointment at a port of entry about an asylum claim. Presumably he made some plausible claim to asylum that was later found to be false, because DHS asserts that he entered the country illegally.
I'm not saying he was granted citizenship. I'm saying he was granted the right to stay in the country. Lots of people enter the country illegally who then win the right to stay.
What else should it mean to "be in the country legally" if it doesn't include a situation where a judge has said you can't be deported? In the context of talking about people being unfairly deported, the implication of saying they aren't in the country legally is clearly meant to convey the idea that they're supposed to be deported. A judging ruling that they cannot be deported clearly contradicts that.
It isn't illegal to try to enter the US at a port of entry and make an asylum claim, and even if it were, then they shouldn't have scheduled an appointment with him to do so.
Being in the country legally has several side effects, ranging from work eligibility to running the clock on naturalization. Getting a 'the government can't send you to this specific country' or 'the government can't send you anywhere else until the end of the case' does not.
If I visit the US as a tourist, I cannot work there, despite being there legally. The right to work is not the test. There are several visas that don't allow one to work.
The relevant point here, regardless of how you want to define words, is that the US is breaking the law by deporting people who it should not be deporting, both legally and morally. More importantly, they should not be being deported, legally or morally in the way that they are.
The reality is that ICE is disappearing people without due process and sending them to be tortured in prison in El Salvador without so much as a criminal charge, let alone a trial. It's not histrionic to describe them that way. To deny that and say they're only deporting illegal immigrants in accordance with existing law elides the fact that these people's rights are being abused in myriad ways and that they legally cannot actually be deported. The US is breaking the law.
You can come up with some argument why technically the definition of illegal immigrants means that even though they can't be deported that's the correct label to use, but the original claim was clearly trying to say that everything is on the up and up and no one was being mistreated. The alleged histrionics are much closer to the truth.
I have never seen anything approaching a reasonable defence of this.
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