Since we’re using El Salvador like it’s a new Gitmo. Like yes, it would still suck for the people from El Salvador.

But at least people from other countries would go back to their home country. Presumably to be treated far better than El Salvador.

  • Lembot_0002@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because Congress doesn’t care about the well-being of those people. Why else would this nuance be inserted into the law?

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Congress recently passed a law that allows people to be deported without due process. They’re not trying to stop him…they’re actively helping him.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t know what the US congress is any more, but in other countries it’s because they really really want to expel someone and the deportee’s home country might say “no thanks, they’re your problem”.

      • spittingimage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Afganistan said no when the US wanted Bin Laden. Two and a half trillion dollars later the exact same people are back in charge and now they’re armed with modern American weapons instead of vintage Soviet ones. Everyone lost except the people who said no to the US.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        BS. You think the US is going to invade over not accepting a deportee? The rest of the globe is not so scared of the US that they will just do whatever silly BS the US asks, especially now that we’ve been proven to be a bunch of impotent clowns.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do you remember how prisoners were kept in Guantanamo Bay, even after they were no longer suspected of any wrongdoing, simply because there wasn’t a country that would both accept them and treat them in accordance with US law? Many of those prisoners ended up nowhere near where they came from.

    Some countries refuse to accept deportees. Some countries are so likely to mistreat deportees that sending them to those countries is illegal. Some countries simply don’t exist anymore.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The fucking thought that Americans feel superior enough to not allow another country to take them…in this case from their extra judicial torture black site.

        • Squizzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The point being that the US would see fit to refuse to return someone to a particular country all the while torturing them in the same black site.

  • Ricky Rigatoni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because then most of the people being deported right now would just be deported to the US, causing a paradox and unfolding reality.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Mainly because the law is working as intended. Also because you would have to define what “their own country” is. Think of DACA recipients, who in many cases don’t even speak the language of the place where they were born, have no cultural or family connections back there, is that “their own country” if the are more USian than anything? What tablet the opposite? naturalized Citizens who very much retain the cultural and heritage connections, at times even creating separate cultural enclaves.

    It is almost as if “your own country” is a made up racist concept that gets wielded by power structures to keep people at each other’s throats.

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    it’s not a law that one country can make. it’s a law that requires agreement between countries via international treaty

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      We could easily, and should, implement a law saying that people must be deported back to their own country. It just means fewer people would be deported.

      • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        it’s not a law that one country can make. it’s a law that requires agreement between countries via international treaty

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Still not getting it.

          The US can create a law saying “you can only deport people to their home country”. And if the home country doesn’t allow that, don’t fucking deport them.

          It’s basic empathy.

          Otherwise, let’s just all deport them all to Antarctica. It would save a lot of money on logistics, if we’re willing to not give a fuck.

  • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    To the current constitution-violating republican administration, none of this matters and the cruelty is part of it. That said, let’s play a game:

    • what is the country of someone who grew up in the US, possibly speaking only English?
    • what happens if the country is inaccessible for some reason (countries occasionally collapse or close borders)
    • what happens if the borders of the country change and the person’s hometown (or all their family) is now in country X instead of their country of birth Y

    There are probably more weird edge cases that would need to be in any law as well.

    • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Also, if someone claims asylum, international law explicitly forbids sending them back to their country (not that international law has any bearing whatsoever on this but y’know, add a layer on top)

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yup. Just waiting for a little while from now when Trump starts deporting Ukranians to Russia because “well the place they came from doesn’t exist it’s Russian now”

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Back in the day, they told Lord Byron that there was a rule against people having dogs at his college.

    There wasn’t a rule against having a bear, so he got one of those.

  • Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    I mean, ignoring the law is this administration’s whole thing, so it wouldn’t matter. Also, as we’ve seen in the UK as well as the US, many targetted individuals have never even been to “their own country”.

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There’s a lot wrong with sending everyone to El Salvador or Gitmo. But quite a few people who seek asylum are trying to escape a deadly situation in their own country. (Yes if they’re trying for asylum they’re not supposed to be deported without due process but that’s not stopping the Reich.)