Back in court today. Judge wants to know how someone can challenge their deportation. DoJ says they can file a habeas brief
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lkvuqthcfs2i
El Salvador was kind enough to return somebody they didn't think met the criteria, which runs counter to the DoJ saying they're certain everyone they sent was a bad guy (on a flight that shouldn't have left in the first place)
https://bsky.app/profile/rgoodlaw.bsky.social/post/3lkvyc726qs23
The ineptitude and haphazard method of this first removal just reinforces how dangerous allowing this precedent to stand would be -
'Our client has been disappeared': Lawyer seeks answers on Venezuelan imprisoned with no due process
and this - Haberman says Trump's remarks have upset his own staff and other Republicans
There is no ineptitude and haphazardness here at all. It is highly calculated and deliberate. It is absolutely the point to deny those legitimately entitled to due process their legislated rights. It makes the next attack on human rights only a small step beyond this one. They haven’t even started on incarceration of “the enemy within” - ie Americans who are ideologically opposed or represent a threat to their power base.
But then wouldn't it have been more effective to at least had that first batch of deportees actually be 100% vetted correctly? With El Salvadore now doing the homework for this administration, it makes the case for 'just trusting them' a lot weaker. All sorts of stories are coming out about how some aren't even Venezuelan, some are women with no gang ties, and lots of families just confused why a tattoo is enough to get 'disappeared'. The administration's response "not having paperwork on these guys shows just how bad they were" isn't holding up very well.
I don't think so.
Let's say you were a fascist dictator in the making. What you'd ideally want is to imprison or execute any political opponents and those ideologically opposed to you. You want to create an ideological vacuum on the opposite side of the political spectrum, since that shores up your ongoing power. But you can't just go straight out and send your DoJ or assassins after your political opposition. That would be seen as an egregious breach of power and you'd face an uprising.
Instead you do it bit by bit. Start with a group of 'undesirables'. After all, it's them criminal immigrants wots responsible for all them problems wit' our country. I mean, who could reasonably disagree with that? But you widen the net. Some of the deportations happen illegally. You ignore the law. You observe which parts of the system are most active in defending the rights of the deportees. You dismantle the infrastructure supporting that part of the system, limiting its power.
And then you go again. The net is widened further. Maybe this time there's deportations coupled with brutal beatings or maybe a whole heap of immigrants, including legal ones, are gunned down for 'resisting deportation'. Again, observe the parts of the system most active in defending rights. Dismantle and repeat.
Eventually there is no line between immigrant and citizen, the law is equally impotent in protecting all. Then perhaps the targets change to those citizens who are 'damaging our way of life'.
At each stage, the infrastructure supporting the defense of civil rights is stripped further and further away, whilst the power of the police state grows stronger and stronger. Eventually there is no rule of law other than the dictator's decree.
It's a well worn path. Spain, Germany, Albania, Yugoslavia, Russia and Chile, to name a few, have all walked its journey.
