Reply to Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
How is it reasonable to ship someone to Sudan for the crime of trying to feed their family?
[/quote]

Sounds like you don't think they should be deported anywhere.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]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.
[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics