Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

[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.

Please tell us all about how you know nothing about South Sudan. There has been a tenuous truce in the South Sudanese civil war, which began nearly immediately after independence until 2020. The UN expressed concerns as recently as April that the truce may fall apart and the region devolve into another war. Believe nearly 400,000 killed in last round along with 2.5+ million displaced.

And what cite do you have for how the [South Sudan] government will not subject anyone to torture or death? And what is with the claim about how the Convention Against Torture does not apply - what do you even mean? Unless you have been in a civil war in any country, as I have been in West Africa, I wouldn't make a fool of yourself about claims of safety, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

Crossing a border into the US is a civil violation, not a crime, and those who do so should not be treated as criminals.

[Anonymous]

Just so DCUMers know, the people you love to vilify were some of the first boots on the ground after the tragic Texas flood.

The U.S. Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR), which is part of their Special Operations Group (SOG), flew in to help with the rescue and recovery of victims. As the caption on their Instagram post says, "Relentless, because every life matters."

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLy0rBfsHcY/?igsh=cmJnMnYwNXcwa2Rt

Here's some background on BORSTAR.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Border%20Patrol%20Search%2C%20Trauma%2C%20and%20Rescue.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please tell us all about how you know nothing about South Sudan. There has been a tenuous truce in the South Sudanese civil war, which began nearly immediately after independence until 2020. The UN expressed concerns as recently as April that the truce may fall apart and the region devolve into another war. Believe nearly 400,000 killed in last round along with 2.5+ million displaced.

And what cite do you have for how the [South Sudan] government will not subject anyone to torture or death? And what is with the claim about how the Convention Against Torture does not apply - what do you even mean? Unless you have been in a civil war in any country, as I have been in West Africa, I wouldn't make a fool of yourself about claims of safety, etc.

A war zone does not mean the government will subject you to torture.
This risk of war with Sudan is likely why South Sudan made this deal.
The US Government has stated in court that South Sudan gave assurances they will not persecute the illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

Crossing a border into the US is a civil violation, not a crime, and those who do so should not be treated as criminals.

A civil violation is a crime.
The remedy is deportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

Crossing a border into the US is a civil violation, not a crime, and those who do so should not be treated as criminals.

A civil violation is a crime.
The remedy is deportation.

That is a destructive and counterproductive posture. Unless of course you're situated to benefit financially from the huge huge amount of money being poured into deportation. The country does not benefit from this horrible solution to the problem but some connected fat cats in the prison industry are going to make a killing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

Crossing a border into the US is a civil violation, not a crime, and those who do so should not be treated as criminals.

A civil violation is a crime.
The remedy is deportation.

That is a destructive and counterproductive posture. Unless of course you're situated to benefit financially from the huge huge amount of money being poured into deportation. The country does not benefit from this horrible solution to the problem but some connected fat cats in the prison industry are going to make a killing.

We have seen Democrats' solution is to let in millions. By doing deportations, less people try to come illegally. Who wants to pay thousands of dollars, to end up deported?

[Anonymous]

Did you all catch the New York Times article about how housing prices go up with more migrants?

[Anonymous]

Apparently migrant farm workers are back on the deportation list--no special status for them, despite Trump saying several times that something would be worked out so that farmers wouldn't be affected.

Who will replace them you might ask? Robots and people on Medicaid, according to Brooke Rollins, Sec. of Agriculture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so DCUMers know, the people you love to vilify were some of the first boots on the ground after the tragic Texas flood.

The U.S. Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR), which is part of their Special Operations Group (SOG), flew in to help with the rescue and recovery of victims. As the caption on their Instagram post says, "Relentless, because every life matters."

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLy0rBfsHcY/?igsh=cmJnMnYwNXcwa2Rt

Here's some background on BORSTAR.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Border%20Patrol%20Search%2C%20Trauma%2C%20and%20Rescue.pdf

Liberals. Don't. Care.
These guys are the bad guys. They can do no good. There are even some people on X who have the moral depravity to celebrate the deaths of white, Christian children. So, there are no doubt people out there who are disappointed that these heroes risked their lives to save lives.
It is absolutely disgusting. Something is wrong with people who vilify these men and women who are heroically doing their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently migrant farm workers are back on the deportation list--no special status for them, despite Trump saying several times that something would be worked out so that farmers wouldn't be affected.

Who will replace them you might ask? Robots and people on Medicaid, according to Brooke Rollins, Sec. of Agriculture.

A lot of people on Medicaid or getting some Medicaid subsidies for healthcare are already working full-time. Why don't these people know that even if you're working full-time, you can still qualify for Medicaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so DCUMers know, the people you love to vilify were some of the first boots on the ground after the tragic Texas flood.

The U.S. Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR), which is part of their Special Operations Group (SOG), flew in to help with the rescue and recovery of victims. As the caption on their Instagram post says, "Relentless, because every life matters."

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLy0rBfsHcY/?igsh=cmJnMnYwNXcwa2Rt

Here's some background on BORSTAR.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Border%20Patrol%20Search%2C%20Trauma%2C%20and%20Rescue.pdf

Climate-denying, government-small-enough-to-drown-in-a-bathtub Republicans are who brought us the Texas tragedy in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no protection under the Convention Against Torture. Risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict is not torture. It just means it is not a nice country to be in. Illegal immigrants don't get to take advantage of the law and their home country's refusal to take them back to say in America.

Crossing a border into the US is a civil violation, not a crime, and those who do so should not be treated as criminals.

A civil violation is a crime.
The remedy is deportation.

Trump has 34 civil violations as well as civil fines in the 7 figures from on plaintiff and in the 8 figures from others. Why should he be president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so DCUMers know, the people you love to vilify were some of the first boots on the ground after the tragic Texas flood.

The U.S. Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR), which is part of their Special Operations Group (SOG), flew in to help with the rescue and recovery of victims. As the caption on their Instagram post says, "Relentless, because every life matters."

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLy0rBfsHcY/?igsh=cmJnMnYwNXcwa2Rt

Here's some background on BORSTAR.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Border%20Patrol%20Search%2C%20Trauma%2C%20and%20Rescue.pdf

34% of the people these fine officers are detaining are not criminals at all. Some of them are even US born citizens. Maybe if they took more care to actually get warrants on the actual bad guys, rather than sweeping up people at courthouses and Home Depot's, they would gain more sympathy and support. As it is, they are no better than the Gestapo.