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.
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.