I predict they'll argue that because he lived in Mexico from ages 1 to 16 that he effectively relinquished citizenship. Which is BS, of course, but I'm reminded of the Sartre quote "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."
> The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or its territories for five years before the child’s birth. At least two of these years must be after age 14.
> Kind of nuts that there are different rules for out-of-wedlock US citizen father vs out-of-wedlock US citizen mother.
Why? I think that's the historical standard. True maternity has always been easy to establish, but paternity had to rely on legal institutions and custom.
According to the authors of the 14th amendment, the citizenship clause was meant to be retroactive, to right the wrongs of slavery, not a forward motion statute for the world.
Supreme Court to Debate Birthright Citizenship Case.
Are you stating that is true, or that that’s the argument the Trump administration is making right now?
Because the notion that the 14 amendment was supposed to be retroactive only is definitely not captured in some of those quotes here by the senators who debated it:
What immediately drops out of them is that kids of diplomats must return physically to the US for 5 years to be able to pass on their citizenship to their progeny.
These are good rules, not bad. The point of having birthright citizenship is that we don't rely on a fuzzy, nationalist, often-slight-racist notion of "Americanness" or "American Blood" to define our citizenry. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, easy peasy.
But then you need to close the loopholes around people who clearly haven't renounced citizenship and don't want to but still find themselves pregnant in foreign countries such that they don't need to make emergency trips back to the homeland. And that gets a little complicated because you need to distinguish them from actual expatriots in a fair way.
If they are born abroad and then marry a non-citizen or a foreign-born citizen, then yes, it can get tricky. The safest is to return to the US to give birth, at which point there is no issue with passing on citizenship (for now, at least). Otherwise, it's possible that their child is stateless (happened to friends of mine, it took 2 years for them to get US citizenship for their child, who was otherwise stateless).
Did the kid actually have to acquire US citizenship via naturalization or did it just take 2 years to prove that they were a citizen? Those two cases are really different.
Even if you don’t have confirmation and proof that you are a citizen (eg by having a US passport), you are still bound by rules if you happen to be a citizen anyways (eg you have to file/pay US taxes). So a lot of kids find out later in life that they are actually natural born US citizens and have been evading US taxes illegally.
I implore everyone to listen to Obama's 2004 DNC speech [1], endorsing John Kerry. Specifically, for 12:00 and beyond:
"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American Saga: A belief that we're all connected as one people [...] If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up, without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens MY civil liberties [too]. It is that fundamental belief. I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this country work."
You're talking to a nation that was so traumatized by Obama that it went as far in the opposite direction as it possibly could.
There was a time when such ideals mattered. That ended about a decade ago. Today we do not believe that we are connected as a people, and that my civil liberties must be protected at all costs (so long as they're your costs).
I suspect that a lot of people show genuine symptoms of trauma from the 24-hour news cycle telling them to be afraid. This person may not have been affected personally by Obama, but if they watched Fox News throughout his presidency they probably felt traumatized by the end of it.
This "traumatizing media" effect certainly applies to the left, too, and I think social media is the common accelerant.
Obama kicked the failing can of neoliberalism down the road. He could have very easily bailed out the American people directly but chose not to do that and as such I feel like he alienated liberal Americans as much as he did conservative ones.
That title is interesting. I've heard the corollary that the social justice/identity politics of the 2010s through Peak Woke is what awakened a "white" identity in the US.
The MAGAs responded to the "sins of the fathers" narrative by accepting and celebrating their identity. Unintended consequences.
> The law makes it a misdemeanor for undocumented immigrants over age 18 to “knowingly” enter Florida “after entering the United States by eluding or avoiding examination or inspection by immigration officers.”
A good reminder that over 60% of "undocumented immigrants" in the US are here because they overstayed Visas (more likely their Visa extensions were denied). NOT because they entered the country illegally.
However, the enforcement of these laws is following the "guilty until proven innocent" logic. Arrest people who look hispanic and deny them basic legal rights until they prove their citizenship. The fact that citizens are caught up in this should not be a surprise since we are witnessing the fall of due process.
I have seen multiple people bring up the distinction of overstayed Visas, but I don't understand the significance of it. A travel visa is a conditional authorization to a foreigner that allows them to enter and remain within a country. It is just as important during entering as staying.
The Florida only talks about entering so I can understand the distinction there.
Should people without a valid visa not be considered as illegal immigration?
Overstaying is a civil infraction according to current law while illegal entry is a misdemeanor. The distinction is that overstaying a visa is not a crime, so they are not "criminal illegal aliens", despite it being convenient for the administration to claim so.
Interesting to learn a bit about US law. I did not know that things like traffic violations did not count as a crime. It make some sense that crime is that which carries the risk of jail, while everything else is then a civil infraction. Since overstayed visa only can result in fines, deportation, and bans/restrictions from future visiting of the US, it would then count as a civil infraction.
Naturally, it is still illegal to break the law, even if the law do not carry the risk of jail time, so the correct name would be illegal immigration when overstaying a visa.
Is resisting deportation a crime similar to resisting arrest, which then carry the risk of jail time?
> Should people without a valid visa not be considered as illegal immigration?
Yes. But the problem is the rhetoric today is that being an "illegal immigrant" is tantamount to being a rapist, gang member, murderer, or drug dealer.
Therefore people feel justified in depriving them of their rights. Which of course is a very bad thing, but some people feel intuitively that criminals deserve no rights whatsoever to due process. People are now conflating providing due process to illegal immigrants with supporting rape and murder.
So that's why it's very important to point out that when someone is as "illegal immigrant" the image you should not have in your mind is a gangbanger.
That 60% figure would have to depend on a unknown denominator so I dont understand how it would be said so authoritatively. 60% of known undocumented immigrants is the best it could be.
> Are you expecting a perfect system that would never even accost an innocent man?
I'd, at the very least, expect the system to rapidly right the clear wrong when confronted with strong evidence.
> If you don’t want to be mistaken for an illegal alien, how about not riding around with them?
My First Amendment rights include the right to associate with non-citizens.
Am I supposed to demand my friends' citizenship paperwork before going out to dinner? Come the fuck on.
> And once the authorities were presented with his documents he was released.
No, he wasn't.
"However, the state prosecutor insisted the court lacked jurisdiction over Lopez-Gomez’s release because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had formally asked the jail to hold him. “This court does not have any jurisdiction other than what I’ve already done,” [Judge] Riggans said."
You're thinking of the crime as being an undocumented migrant, where the crime takes place either at the point of migration without paperwork, or at the time after migration when the paperwork becomes invalidated. But the rhetoric used these days is that these people are "illegals" and their continued existence is a crime in itself.
> Are you expecting a perfect system that would never even accost an innocent man? Or do you suggest we just give up and eliminate all such enforcement?
Eliminate all enforcement.
You realize that it is (or was) legal to walk into the United States and claim asylum. At that point you have a legal right to reside until the US immigration system decides you need to leave. The alternative is Visa expirations.
The US labor system is designed so that asylum seekers and people on expired Visa's exist in limbo, so that this exact kind of violent force can be used against them to create a hyper-exploited labor class.
The solution is either
1. Close up the border entirely (inhumane and also not beneficial to capitalists)
2. Actually process immigrants instead of keeping them in limbo.
The US benefits from the ambiguity and terror it can inflict on your fellow human beings. I personally don't give a fuck about the law, so that's my bias, but I find it absurd that there are people who still believe that there is some legal basis to be followed, when this administration has already dropped habeas corpus. You value the rules created by the rich and powerful (your class enemies) more than the lives of your fellow humans-- you are truly a fool and I hope you can wake up soon.
Normally I try to not comment on the status of stories being flagged, but this feels particularly egregious. We have a US citizen being detained and held by ICE despite giving evidence of their citizenship. This is fully unacceptable.
All naturalized citizens are in the crosshairs since naturalization can in fact be reverted. It's supposed to be a very difficult process, but with this admin, we already know that their modus operandi will be to throw the book at you and get you whisked away to some detention center and promptly deported, and then good luck fighting it in courts (which they will also stonewall and ultimately ignore anyway).
Worse yet, Trump and his clique have already openly talked about denaturalization and threatened to apply it to political opponents, so it's not idle speculation either.
I Wouldnt be surprise if this story ends up getting flagged for being "too political."
as a minority who was born in this country, I've had plenty of people tell me not to worry because I'm a citizen. These kinds of things are going to happen more and more because there is a bureaucracy being created to enable this. I've had way too many conversations when he first started talking about this stuff. He was
1. "only going after violent criminals"
2. "only going after criminals"
3. "anyone here 'illegally' is. criminal"
Now we have a hot mic about where he talks about sending out "home growns" to Auschwitz 2.0 down in el salvador.
I'll say it bluntly... I'm scared.
I'm personally waiting to get my passport renewed and then I'm bouncing out of here. The writing is on the wall. Its not safe here in America.
It’s absolutely terrifying. What they did to Kilmar Abrego Garcia could happen to anyone, US citizen or not. They have admitted be was rendered to a gulag accidentally but are also saying that now that he’s there, there’s nothing they can do to bring him back, and that no US court has jurisdiction. They just vanished him into a legal black hole and he has very likely been tortured and abused. That legal black hole would work whether you’re a citizen or not. If they have the power to do it to him, they have the power to do it to anyone.
According to the “justice” minister of El Salvador, the only way out of that prison is in a coffin. What has happened here should be a five alarm emergency for every person in America. When the president can make you disappear, you are now living in Chile in 1973.
The problem is a large portion of Americans are either ignorant or chauvinists who don't know what happened in Chile in 1973, or anything about history/politics at all for that matter.
> Why is HN suddenly in favour of an illegant immigrant and domestic abuser who punched his wife and who had taken a protective order against him ?
whatever allegations against him are irrelevant. This is a FREE country whole society is predicated on rule of law. you cannot have liberty and law & order without DUE Process. That he didn't get that is the issue REGARDLESS of his citizenship status or prior crimes.
Confirmed crimes are not allegations. He entered the USA illegally - without "due process". He is a member of a foreign terrorist organization. He was even arrested in the company of MS-13 gang members with long criminal records.
If you are talking about rule of law and "due process", you must honestly bow and congratulate the now effective immigration law-enforcement. Finally "due process" is being followed, after 4 years of being asleep at the wheel, not enforcing federal law, deliberately breaking formal oaths of service and mockingly lying to Congress under oath.
Elizabeth Kessler - the immigration judge declared in charge of his case declared that this man's release in the USA would endanger the public since "evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.". Hell, even an appeals court later affirmed the judge's decision.
A violent gang member was deported to his nation of origin following the ruling made by an immigration judge and even subsequent appeal. The executive branch of the US government then performed according to mandate and deported him accordingly.
> He entered the USA illegally - without "due process".
a judge put him on a DO NOT DEPORT order. whatever his means of initially entering the united states was, he obtained. LEGAL status.
> "evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13."
was there a TRIAL where this "evidence" was presented and deliberated? until that happens, I can't support incarcerating this man, to say nothing of sending him to a foreign gulag.
> Finally "due process" is being followed, after 4 years of being asleep at the wheel
No, the due process in place was a system by which someone who is here illegally could gain legal status. thats what harm reduction looks like. The due process you're talking about would have had him deported to another country. Not sent to a death camp. There was no legislation for sending people to a life sentence for merely being associated with ms 13.
> Its not complicated.
you're right, its not. Yet you're really not gettin this.
> Confirmed crimes are not allegations. He entered the USA illegally - without "due process". He is a member of a foreign terrorist organization. He was even arrested in the company of MS-13 gang members with long criminal records.
Let's not muddy the waters. The only crime Garcia committed was entering the US at 16 years old to flee a gang in El Salvador. Garcia has never been charged or convicted for any crimes in any country [1].
> Elizabeth Kessler - the immigration judge declared in charge of his case declared that this man's release in the USA would endanger the public since "evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13.". Hell, even an appeals court later affirmed the judge's decision.
And that judge's "evidence" contradicted by the DOJ [1][2]:
>> The GFIS explained that the only reason to believe Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was a gang member was that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie; and that a confidential informant advised that he was an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. ...
>> According to the Department of Justice and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the “Westerns” clique operates in Brentwood, Long Island, in New York, a state that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia has never lived in.
> Due process was followed.
> Its not complicated.
It's very complicated, except for the fact that due process was not followed. Garcia had a protective order specifically against being sent to El Salvador [1]:
> He argued, as the government has since admitted, that his removal was illegal because an immigration judge had granted him “withholding of removal” to El Salvador due to his “well-founded fear of future persecution” there from a violent gang known as Barrio 18.
And on the matter of appeals courts, a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals judge (J. Harvie Wilkinson III, appointed by Reagan) who in the past ruled in favor of sending an American citizen to Guantanamo with no charges has decided that Garcia was incorrectly removed to El Salvador and that the Trump administration is defying the Supreme Court order to facilitate his return [3].
> The guy is also now sipping margaritas in a restaurant with Senator Van Hollen as was clearly seen in the Senators own post just some hours ago.
Those "margaritas" appear to have been staged by Bukele [1].
> "When I first sat down with Kilmar, there were just glasses of water on the table," Van Hollen explained. "Then, someone from the Salvadoran government came over and placed two glasses with ice and sugar—or salt—on the rims, clearly staged to look like margaritas."
> "If you look at the one they put in front of Kilmar, it actually had a little less liquid," Van Hollen said. "To try to make it look, I assume, like he drank out of it."
...
> Van Hollen noted that drinking a salt or sugar-rimmed glass would leave a gap. But on the photos shared by Bukele, there is no gap—evidence, he said, that neither he nor Abrego García touched the alleged margaritas.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-citizen-detained-canada-criminal... is one just the other day but there have been several. But again, there have been a bunch of 'US Immigration authorities overreach' stories. The standard for breaking de-repetition can't be 'first I hear of it'. You can always mail the mods to make the case for a particular story if you think it's worth discussing on the front page.
Detained for five hours at the border seems deeply different than "presented a birth certificate to a judge after being arrested while driving through Florida".
I've been detained for a few hours at the border due to a paperwork fuckup. It happens. This is... substantially worse than that.
Right, you can always come up with something that's different about it because they are different cases. The point is HN doesn't really work like that so if you are interested in this story having a different HN life, you have to do something beside parsing the diffs.
It's not flagged for being too political. It's flagged for being off-topic _on this particular website_. It doesn't mean everyone shouldn't, can't, won't discuss it elsewhere.
Do you dine at the laundromat or wash your dishes at the barbershop?
I have no idea what you mean by "homeschooling propaganda". I've been here for decades and can't recall a single article about that making the front page, although I do concede I don't watch the front page 24/7.
> There is clear pattern of what is flagged and what is not with very clear political bias.
Consider the possibility that your biases about what is "worth discussing" are leading you to conclude there's a political bias in what gets flagged even though the flagging is very consistent with the site's stated guidelines.
Never thought I'd see the ugly third world side of America where authorities abuse their power with complete immunity. What happened to the checks and balances?
It died when ICE started snatching people and deporting them without trial. (The government has the obligation to put each person before a court to at minimum prove they are not about to deport a US citizen.)
Incidentally, the position of the current administration is that they should have been able to, last night, send him to serve an indefinite sentence in an El Salvadoran torture prison without ever seeing a judge.
Don't throw away the baby with the bathwater (I live in the EU but hold on a minute...)
_this_ part doesn't work. Not "nothing works anymore". Perhaps there is a special court/system/subsystem that has authority for these cases. Just like Military has its own courts, and they don't try civilians, perhaps for such cases there is a "migration court" (or something-something...)
Unless there isn't in which case, damn those ICE folks are cold!!
No, ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They do not have any authority at all over US citizens who are not engaged in crossing an international border.
Additionally, the current position of the US government is that they should have been able to put this person it a torture prison in El Salvador without him ever seeing a judge.
A concentration camp is a facility where individuals are detained without legal process, often based on their ethnicity or political beliefs, and typically under harsh conditions. In contrast, a prison is a legal institution where individuals are held after being convicted of a crime, following a judicial process.
My feeling based on the terseness of your reply is that you don't really want to support what you had said initially because there's no real difference or distinction to be made between a concentration camp, and a torture prison.
There is indeed a special immigration court system, but there's a catch. Those courts are "administrative courts", meaning that they are formally part of the executive, not the judiciary, and judges are also executive appointees. So they operate under rules that are themselves written by ICE, and with this admin's insistence on "unitary executive" theory, are entirely subject to the whims of the president.
To give you one example of how bad it already was before Trump, these are the same courts where 3-year old children who don't know English were required to argue their case before the judge by themselves, without a lawyer: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-immigration-court...
So it was already a sham as far as due process go. But now the executive says that they aren't obligated to give people a hearing at all.
And anyone working for ICE is a willing enforcer for this system. They should be treated accordingly.
> "To give you one example of how bad it already was before Trump"
That was during Trump's first term. Going in to this, we already saw how bad he was, so we should have expected worse this time. That's part of the reason this second term has a depravity multiplier. We knew, and chose him anyway.
The whole "children in courts without representation" does in fact predate even the Trump's first term. It certainly got much worse under him, but I hope that people will look at this beyond just the man and realize how well and truly fucked up the US immigration system has been for decades.
That must be a restriction imposed on the court by Florida law - I think it’s pretty well established that ICE detainers alone don’t mandate anything of state courts or law enforcement.
> Otherwise… I have no idea why the judge would just cave to the prosecutor’s argument like that.
A lot of judges in lower courts just aren't that good... the best legal minds gravitate to the top of the system, the judges at the lower tiers are very much a mixed bag – some brilliant, some incompetent, others who've lost all passion for their job and are just doing the bare minimum to avoid removal...
Maybe someone should pass a law that limits ICE's range to "not more than 5km/miles from the nearest external border". In which case they operate as border guard and not as "let's go downtown and get us some Pakis/Venezuelans/Italians/etc." (but who's gonna pass this law?)
ICE is known for being fuzzy with its holds. They issue them over sketchy name collisions and inaccurate or outdated charges in their databases. It's one of the factors in why a bunch of cities don't cooperate with ICE -- they hate getting sued over it when it happens.
That is to say, this is mostly a story about ICE doing what ICE has always done, getting attention because of other prominent cases. Deservedly! Because ICE is a pretty awful institution in practice.
Yeah very little information here. Looks like he got charged with an immigration-related crime, ruled not guilty by state court because he's a citizen, but they can't actually release him yet because ICE got involved so now it's a federal matter and he also has to prove he's a citizen to the feds too?
Kinda ridiculous that he was charged in the first place. I'm not sure what the basis for that was, maybe one of the people he was in the car with was in the country illegally and they just carelessly charged everyone without checking? I expect it'll be cleared up quickly and he'll be released in another day or two, just as it was with the drunk driving case in Georgia he was previously arrested for.
No, you are reading it wrong. That's what he was initially brought for, but he was held later by a request from ICE, and the reason for that request the article omits.
I am also wondering the same thing, how can they even hold him?
He was charged with a DUI (not even an ICE matter) other than that his crime seems to be that he doesn't speak English and lived in Mexico most of his life?
Also... shouldn't you be assumed to be a citizen (e.g. innocent) unless proven otherwise? Have we turned in to Nazi Germany (Papers please...)
Did they pass an executive order voiding birth right citizenship and I missed it? I know they were trying to...
Anyone detained by any government agency has the right to file a habeas petition. It's a very fundamental right and applies to non-citizens as well.
The difference, insofar as courts have decided to date, is that citizens have this right even when they are detained outside of US borders, while non-citizens only have it when detained within those borders (and generally wherever the US govt has "ultimate sovereignty", e.g. Gitmo).
