About 90% of Migrants Sent to Salvador Lacked US Criminal Record(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
About 90% of Migrants Sent to Salvador Lacked US Criminal Record
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-09/about-90-of-migrants-sent-to-salvador-lacked-us-criminal-record
30 comments
The interesting thing is that if you choose to deport or enforce immigration policy at a wide scale ... almost by default you end up clogging up the system so that even if you want to emphasize dangerous / criminals ... you can't because you clogged the system with a volume of non criminals. Now you've de-emphasized dealing with criminals.
That's why there's no massive sweeps like fear mongers promised.
Even with the approximately 100,000 that have been rounded up since late january, my understanding is that holding facilities are full in the US.
--
The other side of this is that if the ~15 million people in the US illegally were to simply turn themselves in, it would cause such chaos that Congress might finally decide the problem is no longer more valuable to keep than to address. Malicious compliance is a powerful tool ...
Even with the approximately 100,000 that have been rounded up since late january, my understanding is that holding facilities are full in the US.
--
The other side of this is that if the ~15 million people in the US illegally were to simply turn themselves in, it would cause such chaos that Congress might finally decide the problem is no longer more valuable to keep than to address. Malicious compliance is a powerful tool ...
I think the no massive sweeps is that there's just not capacity to do that ... not at a super massive scale.
Right‽ And holding cells are just part of it
> Now you've de-emphasized dealing with criminals
By any reasonable account, criminals were already de-emphasized.
A woman was burned alive on the subway by an illegal immigrant. That only happens when law enforcement has been categorically denied the opportunity to punish law breakers of all stripes.
By any reasonable account, criminals were already de-emphasized.
A woman was burned alive on the subway by an illegal immigrant. That only happens when law enforcement has been categorically denied the opportunity to punish law breakers of all stripes.
Let's just be clear here - it was never about deporting "illegal immigrants" or "criminals". It was about creating fear and submission.
> Let's just be clear here - it was never about deporting "illegal immigrants" or "criminals". It was about creating fear and submission.
Honestly though, isn't "creating fear and submission" required to enforce laws, because it's impossible to get sufficient compliance without those things? They'll never be enough ICE agents to deport all illegal immigrants, so probably the only way to make a serious dent in the numbers is create enough "fear and submission" that illegal immigrants "self-deport" on their own.
Honestly though, isn't "creating fear and submission" required to enforce laws, because it's impossible to get sufficient compliance without those things? They'll never be enough ICE agents to deport all illegal immigrants, so probably the only way to make a serious dent in the numbers is create enough "fear and submission" that illegal immigrants "self-deport" on their own.
> They'll never be enough ICE agents to deport all illegal immigrants
This is why they are deporting anyone who looks like an immigrant. Not checking immigration status saves a lot of time. The idea is not to make only illegal immigrants fear the ICE, but anyone who might look like one.
This is why they are deporting anyone who looks like an immigrant. Not checking immigration status saves a lot of time. The idea is not to make only illegal immigrants fear the ICE, but anyone who might look like one.
I think it's more about law and order theatre. These actions play well with people who vote for people like Kristi Noem.
I think it's malice masquerading as incompetence. They go after everyone who doesn't look American enough, don't do any checking, and, by the time someone notices, they are already working as slaves for The Glory of El Salvador.
Afaik the USA de facto has a dictator consolidating his power right now. I am wondering what are the options of returning to rule of law, apart from hoping congress has the will and enough power left to do something.
Unsure why you're getting downvoted, perhaps because you used the fear-inducing d-word. While I'm not at the point of calling him that, I do think we're certainly living with the illusion of a democracy at the moment.
Ultimately, whoever has the guns makes the rules. This is why coups often happen via military takeover. If Congress were to decide they finally wanted to act as a check against the administration, what's to happen?
Playing through a thought-experiment on this:
- Congress decides to limit Executive
- Executive refuses
- Courts intervene
- Executive appeals
- Supreme Court issues opinion targeting narrow aspect of intervention and kicks it back to lower court to reconsider based on opinion
- Courts... reject Executive again? (one can hope)
- Executive appeals
- Supreme Court forced to issue ruling against Executive (one can hope)
Meanwhile, weeks/months have passed and Executive would've already established this use of power as the "norm". Realistically, what happens at this point? Does the Executive just accept the loss? _This_ Executive in _this_ environment?
I dare not hope that much lest I lose sight of the difference between fantasy and reality.
Ultimately, whoever has the guns makes the rules. This is why coups often happen via military takeover. If Congress were to decide they finally wanted to act as a check against the administration, what's to happen?
Playing through a thought-experiment on this:
- Congress decides to limit Executive
- Executive refuses
- Courts intervene
- Executive appeals
- Supreme Court issues opinion targeting narrow aspect of intervention and kicks it back to lower court to reconsider based on opinion
- Courts... reject Executive again? (one can hope)
- Executive appeals
- Supreme Court forced to issue ruling against Executive (one can hope)
Meanwhile, weeks/months have passed and Executive would've already established this use of power as the "norm". Realistically, what happens at this point? Does the Executive just accept the loss? _This_ Executive in _this_ environment?
I dare not hope that much lest I lose sight of the difference between fantasy and reality.
> Unsure why you're getting downvoted, perhaps because you used the fear-inducing d-word. While I'm not at the point of calling him that, I do think we're certainly living with the illusion of a democracy at the moment.
I think you have it a little wrong. We aren't living "with the illusion of a democracy at the moment," as Trump and the Republicans were all elected democratically (because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to take the threats they were screaming about seriously, and actually change their tactics and strategy).
What you describe seems to be more the "illusion of the rule of law."
I think you have it a little wrong. We aren't living "with the illusion of a democracy at the moment," as Trump and the Republicans were all elected democratically (because the Democrats couldn't be bothered to take the threats they were screaming about seriously, and actually change their tactics and strategy).
What you describe seems to be more the "illusion of the rule of law."
Quite the chilling story.
The irony of the current administration making this argument: "The administration has acknowledged in court that not all the men have criminal records, but say it’s only further evidence of the threat they pose."
Here is a dumb question, even if these people were violent felons, what is the legal basis for sending them to a prison in another country? Does that not violate 8th amendment and/or habeas corpus regardless of the Alien Enemies Act (I cannot seeing the "right" to deport overriding the rest of the protections in the constitution)?
The irony of the current administration making this argument: "The administration has acknowledged in court that not all the men have criminal records, but say it’s only further evidence of the threat they pose."
Here is a dumb question, even if these people were violent felons, what is the legal basis for sending them to a prison in another country? Does that not violate 8th amendment and/or habeas corpus regardless of the Alien Enemies Act (I cannot seeing the "right" to deport overriding the rest of the protections in the constitution)?
Relatedly: "ICE director envisions Amazon-like mass deportation system: ‘Prime, but with human beings’"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43633012
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43633012
What percentage were in the USA illegally?
I want you to answer this question honestly: does being in the USA illegally warrant a life sentence in a foreign concentration camp that sits outside the rule of law?
zero
[deleted]
As the slippery slope starts, pay attention so that you're a step ahead. You're probably not brave enough to fight it, but you needn't be stupid enough to stay.
First they came for the Communists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a Communist
First they came for the Communists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a Communist
Greater criminal potential
Dystopian as hell. Crossing into "thought crime" territory. We all have the potential for great evil, where do you draw the line at pre-prosecuting people because they might commit some crime or another in the nebulous future?