Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive

[Anonymous]

Illegal immigration happens from all sorts of countries...yet ICE seems to be rounding up mainly those from South and Central America. I wonder why...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How is it reasonable to ship someone to Sudan for the crime of trying to feed their family?

Sounds like you don't think they should be deported anywhere.

DP. I can't speak for the PP but I think the choice of Sudan is very troubling given that it's undergoing a civil war and a humanitarian crisis. Things are so bad there that the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum has suspended operations.

All administrations have deported migrants from countries that wouldn't take them back to third countries, but those third countries tended to be more politically stable, like Mexico, Guatemala, or Costa Rica. Sending someone who is not from there to Sudan, Djibouti, or CECOT in El Salvador is not reasonable. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson recently argued that deporting migrants to a war-torn country like South Sudan risked torture or death, violating international obligations like the Convention Against Torture. The administration’s decision to hold the migrants in Djibouti was also criticized for subjecting them and the ICE officers guarding them to harsh conditions, including extreme heat and threats of rocket attacks.

It is not Sudan where they are being sent, but South Sudan which is not in a civil war, but separated from Sudan about 15 years ago as part of the civil war. The government there will not be submitting anyone to torture or death, so Convention Against Torture does not apply.
The only reason they had to hold them in Djibouti was because this federal judge illegally issued an injunction, and the higher courts took to long to overturn the lawlessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A bargain at twice the price.

[Anonymous]

Seems the new talking points is that the immigration detention and deportation is providing a lot of profits to some third parties.

This is what happened under Biden with all the NGOs helping to settle illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP...here is an article

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/06/trump-voting-family-canadian-mother-detained-immigration-status


And the reason ICE moves them from facility to facility is that each one can charge the US government (ie taxpayers) for a full day, even if they are only there for a few hours. So each day, ICE is revolving people across facilities while the prison owners reap the rewards.

Each alien is free to leave detention at any moment. They can just walk right out and enjoy their freedom; they literally hold the keys to their detention in their own hands. They can go anywhere in the world (just not the USA).

Ever consider that?

[Anonymous]

Raymond Lopez is one of the few reasonable Democrats left. Too bad he is local to Chicago and doesn't have a more national presence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigration happens from all sorts of countries...yet ICE seems to be rounding up mainly those from South and Central America. I wonder why...

I’ve been wondering this too. A few years ago we heard a lot about Chinese nationals pouring through the southern and northern borders but I don’t hear about them raiding Chinese restaurants and Chinatowns in NYc and SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP...here is an article

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/06/trump-voting-family-canadian-mother-detained-immigration-status


And the reason ICE moves them from facility to facility is that each one can charge the US government (ie taxpayers) for a full day, even if they are only there for a few hours. So each day, ICE is revolving people across facilities while the prison owners reap the rewards.

Each alien is free to leave detention at any moment. They can just walk right out and enjoy their freedom; they literally hold the keys to their detention in their own hands. They can go anywhere in the world (just not the USA).

Ever consider that?

Nope. Once they are detained by ICE, they are at the whim of Stephen Miller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigration happens from all sorts of countries...yet ICE seems to be rounding up mainly those from South and Central America. I wonder why...

Because 80% of illegal immigrants come from Latin America. That’s why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How is it reasonable to ship someone to Sudan for the crime of trying to feed their family?

Sounds like you don't think they should be deported anywhere.

DP. I can't speak for the PP but I think the choice of Sudan is very troubling given that it's undergoing a civil war and a humanitarian crisis. Things are so bad there that the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum has suspended operations.

All administrations have deported migrants from countries that wouldn't take them back to third countries, but those third countries tended to be more politically stable, like Mexico, Guatemala, or Costa Rica. Sending someone who is not from there to Sudan, Djibouti, or CECOT in El Salvador is not reasonable. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson recently argued that deporting migrants to a war-torn country like South Sudan risked torture or death, violating international obligations like the Convention Against Torture. The administration’s decision to hold the migrants in Djibouti was also criticized for subjecting them and the ICE officers guarding them to harsh conditions, including extreme heat and threats of rocket attacks.

It is not Sudan where they are being sent, but South Sudan which is not in a civil war, but separated from Sudan about 15 years ago as part of the civil war. The government there will not be submitting anyone to torture or death, so Convention Against Torture does not apply.
The only reason they had to hold them in Djibouti was because this federal judge illegally issued an injunction, and the higher courts took to long to overturn the lawlessness.

Oh, I see, well then that makes it all good then. Thank you for the clarification. South Sudan sounds lovely.

State Department Travel Advisory on South Sudan

Updated to reflect ordered departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel due to continued security threats in South Sudan.

Do not travel to South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.

Country Summary: Due to the risks in the country, on March 08, 2025, the Department of State ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. government employees from South Sudan.

Armed conflict is ongoing and includes fighting between various political and ethnic groups. Weapons are readily available to the population. In addition, cattle raids occur throughout the country and often lead to violence.

Violent crime, such as carjackings, shootings, ambushes, assaults, robberies, and kidnappings are common throughout South Sudan, including Juba. Foreign nationals have been the victims of rape, sexual assault, armed robberies, and other violent crimes.

Reporting in South Sudan without the proper documentation from the South Sudanese Media Authority is considered illegal, and any journalistic work there is very dangerous. Journalists regularly report being harassed in South Sudan, and many have been killed while covering the conflict.

The U.S. government has limited ability to provide emergency consular services to U.S. citizens in South Sudan. U.S. government personnel working in South Sudan are under a strict curfew. They must use armored vehicles for nearly all movements, and official travel outside Juba is limited. Due to the critical crime threat in Juba, walking is also restricted; when allowed, it is limited to a small area in the immediate vicinity of the Embassy and during daylight hours only. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and/or a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). This is due to risks to civil aviation operating within or in the vicinity of South Sudan. For more information U.S. citizens should consult the Federal Aviation Administration’s Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices. Read the country information page for additional information on travel to South Sudan.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/south-sudan-travel-advisory.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP...here is an article

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/06/trump-voting-family-canadian-mother-detained-immigration-status


And the reason ICE moves them from facility to facility is that each one can charge the US government (ie taxpayers) for a full day, even if they are only there for a few hours. So each day, ICE is revolving people across facilities while the prison owners reap the rewards.

Each alien is free to leave detention at any moment. They can just walk right out and enjoy their freedom; they literally hold the keys to their detention in their own hands. They can go anywhere in the world (just not the USA).

Ever consider that?

DP. Ran your claim through Grok and you are wrong:

"The statement is highly inaccurate. Unauthorized immigrants in U.S. detention cannot simply "walk out" of detention facilities. They are held under strict custody by ICE, with no ability to leave until a custody determination is made, which may involve deportation, release on bond, or other conditions. Detention is enforced to secure their presence for immigration proceedings, and self-deportation is not a practical option for most detainees."

[Anonymous]

As of June 28, a full 32% of the people arrested by ICE and sent to detention had NO CRIMINAL RECORD — no pending criminal charges or prior conviction. This rate doubled since Stephen Miller's quotas began in May.

This is likely the highest rate of such detention in ICE's history.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lthger5gzc2y

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As of June 28, a full 32% of the people arrested by ICE and sent to detention had NO CRIMINAL RECORD — no pending criminal charges or prior conviction. This rate doubled since Stephen Miller's quotas began in May.

This is likely the highest rate of such detention in ICE's history.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lthger5gzc2y

An illegal alien does not need to have a criminal record to be detained and deported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As of June 28, a full 32% of the people arrested by ICE and sent to detention had NO CRIMINAL RECORD — no pending criminal charges or prior conviction. This rate doubled since Stephen Miller's quotas began in May.

This is likely the highest rate of such detention in ICE's history.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lthger5gzc2y

An illegal alien does not need to have a criminal record to be detained and deported.

This all shows that Trump, Noem, Miller and others were lying through their teeth when they claimed they were prioritizing violent felons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As of June 28, a full 32% of the people arrested by ICE and sent to detention had NO CRIMINAL RECORD — no pending criminal charges or prior conviction. This rate doubled since Stephen Miller's quotas began in May.

This is likely the highest rate of such detention in ICE's history.

https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lthger5gzc2y

An illegal alien does not need to have a criminal record to be detained and deported.

This all shows that Trump, Noem, Miller and others were lying through their teeth when they claimed they were prioritizing violent felons.

68% are violent felons.

This is 68% of a much larger group of immigration arrests.