Majority of Jews killed in Hocaust were not Germans. They were from conquered countries.

So, while there was some Madagascar plans floating and while they tried to deport as many German Jews (majority of who were atheists, considered themselves Germans etc) in first stages, they were aware there is going to be showdown later on anyway.

The holocaust also required mass incarceration and deportation, except that the huge undertaking of deportation was towards death camps in occupied territories instead of some foreign land. On the first point above, I caution against thinking that it would be much easier; it wasn't really, they just decided that they wanted to kill the people they considered undesirable after all.

On the second point, it's worth noting that the efforts at expulsion partly failed because many other countries, despite knowing of the brutal repression being suffered by the jews (and others but the jews in particular) decided to stonewall most avenues of exit from Nazi domains. Deportation would have still been terrible, but at least it would have put millions of eventual victims outside the reach of gas chambers and death squads. Such as it was, a sort of tacit complicity of indifference didn't allow that to happen, by others who weren't even necessarily supporters of the Nazis.

In either case, be careful about calling evil people practicing evil ends incompetent. In so many ways they were very competent at far more than simple bravado, and underestimating the capabilities of barbaric monsters is always dangerous for future lessons.

It turns out that some people don't have a mind of their own and are waiting for orders.

Here is no exception. Look at the foaming at the mouth praise of the second coming of Microsoft when Satya took over. And where we are now? Look at the hype as well - blockchain, crypto and AI now. Mindless people slithering all over everything.

In fact I find a lot of the people in the technology sector to either be entirely morally bankrupt or lack any kind of self or societal awareness of their speech of actions. It disgusts me. I've been on HN pretty much since day one but the accounts last perhaps 6 months before I tire of it.

I moved out of the tech-first industry about 10 years ago and into a position of tech as a tool not a reason for a business existing and there are better people here.

So pay would have to go up?

There'd probably also have to be something where if they were following department policy, then the officer (well, their insurance) can turn around and demand reimbursement from the department.

You can't really claim that something is absolutely necessary when there are countries that don't have it.

It's nice to live in that dreamland that we can resort to criminal prosecutions for officers who violate the law that does not happen as often as it should. As part of their job, what they are trained to do, is to be able to evaluate a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Yet you regularly see officers violate those standards with impunity. The problem is when someone violates your rights by arresting you without sufficient probable cause there is nearly no recourse for the average person.

If immigration took you and held you for 2 weeks, how disruptive would that be to your life? Would you lose your house, your job, more than that? If it was found that they had no probable cause to for an arrest what realistic legal recourse do you have, and how many years would it take for that recourse?

So if you want to maintain qualified immunity because you believe it's a requirement for these people to do their jobs then where is the balance to that? Because right now there is no balance. If you don't want officers to be held directly responsible or to have to pay for expensive insurance policies somebody needs to pay because without a financial incentive things don't change. What about something that puts a strict financial incentive on getting things right at the first time. Obviously this would be a burden that the taxpayers share but when the taxpayers realize they're shelling out money for people who are not diligent in their work that will change very quickly. If someone is arrested and the courts find there was no probable cause for the arrest. How about $10,000 a day for every day that that person was held. That puts a meaningful financial burden on getting it right. Because then it becomes readily apparent which officers are problematic and which ones are not.

The situation we're in right now is not working and there doesn't seem to be any plans to fix it. Because literally my friend where there is no probable cause for them to be arrested and held by immigration is being held by immigration. Like most people they live month to month. So if they're not working nobody pays their bills nobody pays for their apartment. If they're held for 2 weeks or a month or God forbid even longer before they're let go where is the actual financial recourse because they lost everything in their life? Because your suggestion doesn't solve for that problem and provides no incentive for immigration to follow the laws or even follow the courts.

Because the interesting thing is with the original arrest they would have been released the next day on their own recognizance. Police that do not care about the constitutions or due process or the rights of individuals proactively contacted immigration and immigration requested that she be turned over to them. No reason given and there's no reason for the police to have suspected that a person with all the proper documentation and identification is in violation of any federal immigration law. So tell me honestly what is your solution if it's not to strip away qualified immunity and if it's not to place a heavy financial burden on these agencies in some way that directs back to the individuals that are willfully violating people's rights?

Voters across the political spectrum have made it unmistakably clear — in poll after poll — that they are deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and asylum-seeking entries.

Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?

Whether you like it or not, it has indeed been happening for a long time, and under multiple administrations from either party. If you're interested in the tragedy of it all enough to care, then go look these cases up instead of first accusing someone of lying because they might be smearing a politician that you preferred, and who isn't the current orangutan in the White House.

Trump's administration is notably and vocally hostile to illegal immigrants, to migrants and I suspect to immigrants in general, but it's mainly still using the tools and practices that have long since been refined by multiple federal agencies whenever opportunities for heavy-handedness presented themselves.

Because it's Trump's administration, and enough of the major media system is unsupportive of him (still, for now), the matter is gaining more attention. This attention is a good thing, but it shouldn't cloud one from considering the possibility that the bureaucratic defects and authoritarian inertia of federal policing exist beyond the confines of a single type of administration.

This is not true - a citizen by birth can become the president, a naturalized citizen cannot.

This is why birthright as a legal concept is a diminishment of citizenship for all those who hold it.

Parents pass on the shared history, values, and national culture to their kids. Parents are those who give value to US citizenship.

Not coming out of a belly, that happens to be inside a US hospital.

If undocumented workers are finding productive work in an economy with low unemployment then the problem is that the government is not facilitating them gaining legal status.

Think it should depend on custody. US courts don't just always favor the custody of the citizen parent.

Birthright is somewhat transitive. US citizens can sponsor family members for a green card once they’re 18.

No, the father is not. And when trying to get the mother legal help for her situation was cut off from her. Same when the court tried to get information, ICE ignored it, got her on a plane and then shortly after said “sorry, too late”.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time.

I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.

Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor.

The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it.

This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.

I like this a lot. That makes total sense and would take away the incentive to cross the border to give birth.

A strong no on this being "the moral answer". If people are permitted to vote with their feet maybe people are also permitted to build pickets around communities. That sounds more "moral" to me than entirely ignoring the wishes of the chosen destination's "people". IFF the destination is happy to welcome people who think their community better than their own and want to move over, then fine, that is a much better candidate for "the moral answer".

Voters have rejected this sort of cosmopolitanism at the ballot box, repeatedly. To suggest that governments should open borders over the wishes of their citizens seems to simply be an object-level misunderstanding over the goals of statecraft.

Is father a US citizen?

Based on https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21... assuming that's the right case it doesn't seem like he is

These were ICE "agents" with an administrative warrant. Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating courtroom -- which she was 100% right to do.

So nothing you said is accurate.

There is a 100% chance she will be completely exonerated, but of course this clown administration -- full of in-the-open criminals of the worst kind -- doesn't care about that, they just care about intimidation. Which is precisely why they brought up charges without a grand jury, which is basically unprecedented, because a grand jury would never have levied such a charge, and then arrested her in public with a perp walk with a photographer at the ready. And they know it won't stick. But because they're an administration of criminal garbage they just want to put the judiciary in its place, while supplicants and smooth-brains cheer them on.

I am not seeing all the details I want, but given the reports of 4 year olds having to defend themselves without representation it is easy to believe these reports of no or little due process for child citizens.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportat...

I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life must have taken to think a person existing in a space is summarizable as illegal. A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. They could enter a space illegally. They could be unauthorized to be in a space. But by simple fact that they exist in the world, if the law makes them illegal to exist, then that law is unjust and should be considered void ab initio based on the very few common similarities among coherent moral frameworks.

From a practical perspective, as parents and tutelaries of children who have citizenship, they should be allowed to stay as guardians and join the US society. We have so many who thumb their nose at culture in the US, whether the right wanting to commit genocide against the outgroup under the guise of MAGA or the left self-shaming because they know the US can be morally better, but of all people, immigrants, especially undocumented and unauthorized immigrants who risk everything and worked outside standard pathways just for the chance to be at the periphery of US society, vulnerable to the predators and outlaws that inhabit that domain, they should be given extraordinary respect and consideration -- which is what we grant all persons who are in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (which is geographically defined).

PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...

The real solution to this is to end jus solis.

Separating children from parents is incredibly cruel, inhumane, even.

So is their life forfeit now, and the respective goverment absolved of responsibility?

Representing that as a "choice" is precisely the Orwellian part. I'm guessing you don't have kids.

This cannot be overstated. I wish I had a thousand up votes to give you. Democrats made a promise they knew would never hold up just for the votes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and these people who were lied to by Democrats are the ones paying the price.

(Also not true, but that's besides the point)

Or at least that is what some reports say. It’s confusing. Fortunately we have a system to due process to figure these issues out.

Unfortunately the current regime has decided that all due process is subject to their discretion.

That's also not actually true. Mothers tend to get custody because both parties are more likely to agree to give them custody (or the father is more likely to cede custody).

If it comes to an actual legal battle, fathers are actually more likely to win custody than mothers.

Alternatives include arranging legal custody for the child and to stay in the US with a relative (as one family was attempting), or finding a legal way for them to leave the country with their parents.

Instead, it seems the government is rushing to illegally remove these children before the courts can intervene

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

There’s never any kind of “extreme” movement designed to stamp this shit out in the USA. It ends up being kids wearing red who have never done pushups or other hard exercise before, mixed with a healthy dose of spooks making absolutely sure that these organizations never gain any real power.

A whole lot of authoritarian bootlickers in this thread who are ready to sell out their countrymen to CECOT themselves deserve to spend some time in a torture prison like that - because there is nothing else in this world that will convince them of the utter inhumanity of such a place.

But you know, “so much for the tolerant left” and all that. Fuck this stupid, tyrannical, authoritarian, reality.

There was a perfectly cromulent immigration plan ready to be voted on by Congress before Trump threw a tantrum because it would have hurt his election chances.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Contr...

PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...

"The Obama administration has prioritized speed over fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.

A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid of fairness and individualized due process."[1]

3/4 of Obama era deportations were 'nonjudicial removals' meaning that there was no hearing in front of an immigration judge before removal. People just didn't care as much then I suppose.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/speed-over-fairn...

As I've mentioned in other comments non-judicial removals (no immigration hearing) are in fact very common accounting for nearly 75% of all removals. Deportation of American citizens has happened, and it is wrong. It's been happening every year in small numbers for the last 30 years. In the OP case in particular the children were deported with the parents at the parent's request according to a DHS statement. So this was not a mistake.

>I'm actually curious - are you aware of that law? Did you hear about it?

Of course, you're talking about The Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. The 'immigration amendment' wasn't really necessary and you could argue the better electronic communications outlined in the bill actually could increase immigration efficiency. It was a very popular lie that legislation was needed to stop millions of illegals from entering the country during the Biden administration. Border crossings have dropped ~95% since the new administration took over. Probably for two main reasons, no more parole while waiting for a hearing and NGO funding drying up.

I understand the basic idea of how you fight an oppressive regime everyone hates. I have no idea how you go about fighting one that half the country supports. Protests aren’t going to fix that.

Last time around, I could at least soothe myself with the idea that he only won because our electoral system is idiotic, and a lot of voters didn’t understand what they were voting for. This time? He won the most votes, and everyone had every opportunity to see what they were getting. I can only conclude that my countrymen are fucked in the head.

MLK said it best: "the moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

And even now you have people that think showing up with clever signs around the downtown parks / public areas on the weekend when all the government offices are closed are somehow going to get their message across. It's not enough. It was never enough. It wasn't enough for Vietnam or Iraq. It's definitely not going to be enough now. Americans are going to have to choose to do some uncomfortable and maybe even risky things to demonstrate our disapproval.

Or we have to admit that for many of us, this is who we actually are as a country. It certainly is a good bit of the voting public. I don't think it's a mistake that in basically one generation we lied to the world about Iraq then elected a fascist twice. And at that point I don't think stern dissent is an effective or even morally correct course of action.

1. They don't know what they can do that will be effective.

2. They don't want to be targeted as dissidents or non-loyalists to the regime.

3. They're drained by their individual economic situations and worries.

4. They're drained by severe disappointment in large swaths of the electorate, and in the failure of checks and balances.

5. Events are so upsetting that they're in denial or consciously avoiding it.

It might be reassuring to see huge protests, but I wouldn't encourage individuals to do that anymore, because most of those people will be identified by the various surveillance technologies that we've built. (Half of the surveillance built by techbros, incidentally.) The identified can then be further suppressed with automation, and the barriers to doing that are much lower than mass physical roundups and concentration camps.

Each side is so encumbered with baggage that I don't want to support them.

One is breaking law and processes in egregious ways. The other thinks that law should not apply to illegal immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process violation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States_(2015...

Jury trials do. Administrative trials never have.

> It's broadly labelled "prosecutorial discretion",

Federal DAs win 98% of their cases. This discretion is not what you think it is.

> IMHO, it's essential.

Well, unless they're J6 defendants, or any other group labeled by the media as undesirable.

To be fair, you and I are involved. I'm on vacation in Mexico. You're presumably also doing something comfortable. We've had, in the span of days, a judge arrested in her court room and multiple U.S. citizens--children, no less---illegally detained and deported.

It's blowing my mind to say this. But the right is clearly using violence as a political tactic. That means there is not only legitimacy, but necessity, in the opposition to begin deploying violence as a political tactic as well. (By this I mean disrupting infrastructure, interfering with law enforcement, disrupting lawmaking, et cetera. Break their cars. Hack their systems. Block their streets and maybe cause damage to their buildings. Under no circumstances do I mean causing physical harm to anyone.)

ICE "abruptly terminated" a phone call with the detained mother "when her spouse tried to provide legal counsel’s phone number". The brown shirts [1] are here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2024-08/O...

Parsing out what the article says is necessary.

It’s how articles are written, and how reporters and editors ask they be read.

“John Doe committed a terrible crime, the FBI said” does not mean the press is reporting the John Doe committed a terrible crime.

I wish the press would respond to cultivated mistrust by committing to high standards, but they have not.

Yea, by the press itself, or, do you honestly believe the billionaire owner class of this form of media has done an excellent job reporting truthfully over the past 30 years?

Pull yourself back from your politics and genuinely consider this.

Are you saying he's figuratively American, or that the father is a U.S. citizen. Because VML's petition for writ of habeas [1] doesn't mention the latter.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harp...

>There are simply too many people who have strong opinions and yet believe untrue things about American immigration.

You appear to be operating from a different premise than people who are skeptical of past efforts to "reform" immigration law. "Permanent legal mass migration" is not the bargain the country wants to make, and thus far every attempt to "reform" immigration operates from that initial premise.

Is that true?

If this is the correct case link it doesn't seem like the father is a US citizen?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...

> father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under Louisiana Revised Statutes

It seems odd that he would give provisional custody to "family friend" then?

Then this doesn't add up then

> Respondent Harper later sent an email further evincing her refusal to release V.M.L. to her custodian, see Exh. 2, and stating that she would instead require V.M.L.’s father to turn himself in for detention and deportation,

So they wanted to deport the US citizen father?

It's possible that I am looking at a different court case perhaps.

> To the extent someone is unequivocally cheating, it's ICE.

So what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are deporting the illegal alien mother and child is a citizen? Forget the possibility of a deported father. Say a single mother with no legal status is being deported.

Does she not get the option to take her child with her?

If she didn’t take the child the same people would be likely be screaming about ICE separating families.

Kids are not a get out of jail free card.

An underdiscussed frustrating aspect of this whole era is that there is never any true retrospection. There is no adjustment in the credibility of the people who predicted exactly how things would play out or the people whose predictions ended up being incredibly wrong. If there is a lack of consequence for being wrong, it ends up meaning there won't be any consequences for maliciously lying in the moment knowing it's only a matter of time until they are proven wrong because when that day comes, they have already moved onto some other lie and the cycle continues.

When OP says "I was for wide-scale deportations until I saw people I like being deported", it's not a case of unintended consequences, it's a case of "When I voted for the leopard party I didn't think the leopards would eat the faces of people I like!"

Unintended consequences means things like "criminality increased because immigrant communities lost trust in the police".

But come on. "Families swept into jails, plain-clothes officers ambushing people on their way to work or school" is how deportations work. Being surprised by that is like being surprised that the death penalty means people get executed.

This isn't a failure of epistemology, it's a failure of empathy. OP just didn't think that the people getting deported would turn out to be people with moral value.

Here is the thing: hard and complex problems require hard and complex solutions, but you chose to put in power the people who like easy solutions. I hope it’s never late to learn a lesson.

Why? Because that's how the system was legally designed to work. You want them to stay here, because some % cases are valid (a lot surrender at ports of entry). So then you must ask yourself, what went wrong? Cartels figured out they could break the system by overwhelming it, yet we had a clear cut way to solve it.

The parties politicized the topic by not doing anything about it... and now here we are.

Question: When Obama/Biden supported legislation to hire more immigration judges to work through the backlog of cases, did you support the legislation as well?

There are for more just ways to handle this. These people are tyrant oligarchs, and need to be treated as such. Today's it's "those people", tomorrow it will be "your people".

https://immigrationimpact.com/2015/05/21/bi-partisan-house-b...

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/31/biden-immigration-courts-de...

The endgame for this policy is a Democrat President deporting and detaining abroad January 6th types, and other violent criminals on the right. (Or worse, nonviolent agitators.) Habeas corpus predates the Magna Carta [1] for a reason.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_Engla...