| I don't follow your bubbles, so I am looking things up on the fly, but the only case I could find of somebody deported "for a decades-old marijuana" conviction was this [1] individual who "has a lengthy criminal record with convictions for distributing cocaine and marijuana, assault and disorderly conduct." And it turns out his deportation was not even ordered by this administration. It was ordered a decade ago after he was imprisoned for some crime while already on probation for yet another crime. Obviously you don't think people like this are desirable immigrants, so this likely gets back to the bubble issue. While it's possible I'm referencing the wrong case, I suspect the issue is more like that whatever bubble you consume did genuinely just frame this as 'Trump deports man for decades old marijuana conviction' when I think you can see that that is plainly false. But if anybody mentioned this in your bubble, they would certainly be rapidly silenced because rage is far more relevant than facts in these bubbles. And consider that the media you're consuming is driving you to think that not only are these actions "heinous" but even that the current administration should be imprisoned for what they're doing, and I expect you probably wish even worse - though may not be willing to say it. This is the exact radicalizing phenomena I was talking about at the very top of this thread. [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/vorasack-phommasith-green-card-revo... |
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm referring to this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ice-released-mass-mom-no... She wasn't deported, hooray! She was still held in bad conditions for over a week, denied necessary medical care, and then released far from home with no resources. Do you think this is acceptable treatment of a legal immigrant? Or do you believe that an old marijuana conviction is enough to consider her "illegal" and thus doesn't count as an action against legal immigrants? Or maybe it's just cherry-picked and not representative? Please explain how "the media [I'm] consuming is driving [me] to think that" sending people to CECOT without trial is heinous. (Note that the "without trial" part is an intensifier, but it would still be heinous even with one.) I'm pretty sure it's the conditions in CECOT and a belief in basic human rights that drives me to think that. Are you asserting that CECOT is actually fine and I'm getting a distorted picture of what it's like there? Are you asserting that my belief that it's heinous to imprison people in awful conditions would disappear if I had a more objective view? Do note that every time you justify one of these things, you're proving my point. You need to go for the ignorance angle if you want to argue that a vast majority of Republicans support immigration. Arguing that they are aware of what's happening but it just doesn't qualify as being against immigration is not going to work. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, so your anecdote didn't actually happen. That could explain why I was having trouble finding it. Think about the fact that the rather relevant update of 'ok, she actually wasn't even deported' didn't make it into your bubble, and why that might be. And more generally, again look at what you're doing here. You're not really making any argument against the claim that e.g. Republicans support immigration. You're instead looking for some random anecdote that turned out poorly on the enforcement against illegal immigration. People in the hundreds of thousands have now been deported. If 99.9% of these cases are handled in the most amazingly professional and reasonable manner, that still means hundreds would not be. You're fishing for that 0.1% to try to frame that as being representative of the 99.9%. I think it's equally obvious that there probably are some issues at the fringe, there always are, as that that things are going perfectly smoothly and reasonably in the overwhelming majority of cases. As for CECOT, I've already answered this. The US does not deport El Salvadorans to CECOT. They deport them to their home country. What happens at that point is up to their home country. And El Salvador has cracked down hard on any sort of viable gang affiliation which has sent their country from one of the most dangerous in the world to one of the top 10 safest places in the world with a genuine government approval rating that is at 90%+. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Think about the fact that the rather relevant update of 'ok, she actually wasn't even deported' didn't make it into your bubble, and why that might be. Your incredible condescension is not helping your argument any. I got the entire story at once. The only thing that saved her from being deported was the timely action of her husband and her lawyer to get the conviction vacated before that could actually happen. If the lawyer hadn't been quite as good, or the local court hadn't been quite as fast, she would have been deported like ICE wanted to. Do you find that acceptable? Do you think that doesn't qualify as being anti-immigration? A million fucking apologies for being imprecise with my description, jesus. > The US does not deport El Salvadorans to CECOT. Absolutely complete 100% horseshit. The administration deported them in full knowledge of where they were going to end up. They knew it, and you know they knew it. Saying they didn't deport people to CECOT is like saying that I didn't kill the guy, I just pushed him out the window, gravity and the pavement are what killed him. Civilized countries do not deport people when they're facing horrible human rights abuses on the other end. And what about all the Venezuelans who got deported to CECOT? Did their home country suddenly switch? Is Venezuela too dangerous and CECOT was better? Did the administration think El Salvador was a nice safe place for them to go, and were totally blindsided when they ended up in CECOT? Come on, man. You're either being ridiculously disingenuous in a bizarre attempt to make a point, or you're proving my point by doing exactly what I said these supposedly "pro-immigration" people do, making the absolute worst excuses to defend the clearly anti-immigration actions of this administration. | | |
| ▲ | somenameforme 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Genuine apologies if my post came off condescending. I do work to stay above the usual emotive trash on internet debates and you've certainly been a perfectly good and respectful 'debate partner.' That said, you have to also see things from my perspective here. You repeatedly referenced this person as somebody who was deported for a marijuana conviction. And you are likely looking for the worst of the worst stories. And so for the worst of the worst to include things like somebody being briefly detained, let alone after lying to immigration officers, it is an anti-climax, to say the least. The reason the Venezuelans were deported to CECOT is because Venezuela refused to accept them. They needed to be deported but no country wanted them. So they ended up in CECOT with the US paying a tidy sum of money for that. They were eventually transferred from CECOT back to Venezuela in exchange for Venezuela releasing a number of political prisoners. Obviously there's some classified behind the scenes stuff going on beyond that, but it's a pretty good ending to the story there. And once again the treatment of illegal immigrants and being for or against legal immigration are two very different things. In those 0.1% of cases where something goes awry obviously I absolutely hope they improve their systems to do a better job. But, by and large, they seem to be doing a phenomenal job of dealing with a problem that never should have been allowed to reach its current magnitude. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
