Is the argument “getting sent to” or “getting returned from”, 2nd argument is stronger but still a bad definition for the same reasons. The legal argument is that you can’t de-deport someone and it’s the responsibility of the other party to deport them back to the USA if they have been mistakenly deported. That being said maybe said laws and deportations in general are a fucked up concept to begin with?
It was an incredibly corrupt process (like most appeals processes are) but most famously it was the legal mechanism by which Oskar Schindler was able to protect his workers and expand his workforce.
I don’t think it is intrinsically wrong to deport someone who has entered the country illegally and a supermajority of Americans agree with that.
With that being said I find the American approach to dealing with immigration self-defeating regardless of what the actual goal is.
There is a fundamental difference between the laws in occupied Poland and the United States. There were no judges or appeals processes. Just Party functionaries whose hands needed greasing.
I don’t think it is intrinsically wrong to deport someone who has entered the country illegally and a supermajority of Americans agree with that.
Then you believe in a system where you can be sent to a place where there is no appeal process to return.
With that being said I find the American approach to dealing with immigration self-defeating regardless of what the actual goal is.
Agreed!
There is a fundamental difference between the laws in occupied Poland and the United States. There were no judges or appeals processes. Just Party functionaries whose hands needed greasing.
That’s kind of like saying “There were no judges or appeals processes for prisons in 21st century America, there were only plea deals made by law firms whose hands needed greasing.” It’s not functionally wrong, but it is technically and legally laughable.
The appeal process within occupied Poland was that first you needed to appeal to your local Judenräte who would negotiate on your behalf to the German occupation authorities. Except most of the time the individual was left out of the process and it was simply negotiations between the Judenräte and the Occupation authority. They were explicitly setup as judges within a form of lower court to manage these sorts of things and one of their strongest forms of resistance was to aquire documentation (sometimes falsified) in order to get those already within the ghettos to be classified as “mischlinge” and allowed out of the ghetto.
They can appeal while detained. That is different from being picked up on the street and sent to another country, no courts, no lawyers, no nothing.
Why is it laughable? Jews and Poles had no rights. The ultimate goal was their extermination. Anything else was just for convenience or to keep from clogging the arteries of genocide by sending too many at once.
That is different from being picked up on the street and sent to another country, no courts, no lawyers, no nothing.
We’re in a de facto vs. de jure argument.
Nazis in Poland; de facto I agree with you. De jure not so much. It was an apartheid system where (depending in when in the timeline) Jews, Poles and Blacks had a distinct set of rights that were routinely violated.
US legal system; de jure I agree with you. De facto not so much. The US has a looooong history of blatant rights violations and use of black sites (GTMO, Homan square, Camp Kościuszko etc.). The specific things your referencing is a relic from the Obama era (article from 2014 talking about legislation from 2012)
.
My annoyance comes from the conflating of de facto vs de jure and then picking which one you focus on depending on what scenario best boosters your claim and not realizing de facto =/= de jure.
That’s not to say it isn’t fucked up, but that pining for the old days of law and order isn’t what you think it is. ‘return to status quo’ is not a fix.
Is the argument “getting sent to” or “getting returned from”, 2nd argument is stronger but still a bad definition for the same reasons. The legal argument is that you can’t de-deport someone and it’s the responsibility of the other party to deport them back to the USA if they have been mistakenly deported. That being said maybe said laws and deportations in general are a fucked up concept to begin with?
It was an incredibly corrupt process (like most appeals processes are) but most famously it was the legal mechanism by which Oskar Schindler was able to protect his workers and expand his workforce.
I don’t think it is intrinsically wrong to deport someone who has entered the country illegally and a supermajority of Americans agree with that.
With that being said I find the American approach to dealing with immigration self-defeating regardless of what the actual goal is.
There is a fundamental difference between the laws in occupied Poland and the United States. There were no judges or appeals processes. Just Party functionaries whose hands needed greasing.
Then you believe in a system where you can be sent to a place where there is no appeal process to return.
Agreed!
That’s kind of like saying “There were no judges or appeals processes for prisons in 21st century America, there were only plea deals made by law firms whose hands needed greasing.” It’s not functionally wrong, but it is technically and legally laughable.
The appeal process within occupied Poland was that first you needed to appeal to your local Judenräte who would negotiate on your behalf to the German occupation authorities. Except most of the time the individual was left out of the process and it was simply negotiations between the Judenräte and the Occupation authority. They were explicitly setup as judges within a form of lower court to manage these sorts of things and one of their strongest forms of resistance was to aquire documentation (sometimes falsified) in order to get those already within the ghettos to be classified as “mischlinge” and allowed out of the ghetto.
They can appeal while detained. That is different from being picked up on the street and sent to another country, no courts, no lawyers, no nothing.
Why is it laughable? Jews and Poles had no rights. The ultimate goal was their extermination. Anything else was just for convenience or to keep from clogging the arteries of genocide by sending too many at once.
We’re in a de facto vs. de jure argument.
Nazis in Poland; de facto I agree with you. De jure not so much. It was an apartheid system where (depending in when in the timeline) Jews, Poles and Blacks had a distinct set of rights that were routinely violated.
US legal system; de jure I agree with you. De facto not so much. The US has a looooong history of blatant rights violations and use of black sites (GTMO, Homan square, Camp Kościuszko etc.). The specific things your referencing is a relic from the Obama era (article from 2014 talking about legislation from 2012) .
My annoyance comes from the conflating of de facto vs de jure and then picking which one you focus on depending on what scenario best boosters your claim and not realizing de facto =/= de jure.
That’s not to say it isn’t fucked up, but that pining for the old days of law and order isn’t what you think it is. ‘return to status quo’ is not a fix.