375
The Supreme Court just took legal status from 300,000 Venezuelans
(www.motherjones.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
375 points (98.7% liked)
News
37520 readers
1343 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand how this makes sense. They had a protected status because their home country was having a crisis. So this would make me think the administration was saying the crisis is over so they should be able to go home.
Yet the administration specifically is referring to Venezuela as under a democratic crisis with large portions of the population experiencing crisis, on all their government websites, like say congress.gov published on September 30, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10230 So their own actions don't align with their statements?
Ah, you misunderstand. Venezuela is both a stable country that these 300k people can return to and a narco-state run by Tren de Aragua that regularly sends drug shipments into the Caribbean Sea on ordinary fishing boats.
You just have to develop a knack for holding onto both of these ideas at the same time.
Some might call this doublethink.
“The enemy is both strong and weak”
Bro, I can hold so many fucking conflicting ideas, you have no idea, I'm the fucking best at it
They're well aware of the crisis; they just don't care to support the people affected by it.
Immigration courts denying asylum claims isn't new. Family friend was denied after he came to America after his brother was murdered by the cartel. I haven't spoken to him in a long time, last I knew they wanted him to to Mexico (???) and reenter on a different visa.
They were approved though, meaning they had background checks done and have lived in this country with no incidents, right? Taking them away makes no sense unless they are caught actively committing a crime.
This article is light on the details And admittedly I’m too lazy to look them up, but a lot of Supreme Court decisions look a lot worse out of context.
It’s clearly wrong to suddenly end this protection status without finding better solutions for these refugees, and it clearly contradicts the gibberish spewing from the executive branch.
But it’s the courts job to decide things like “yes the executive branch can make the determination“, or “yes that does not conflict with the constitution or established precedence” without regard to whether that determination is immoral or self-serving. That is the separation of powers we want restored.
The cynical part of me points out this will make it easier to make their numbers, to brag about all the “dangerous criminals” they’ve deported.
The even more cynical part of me wonders whether this drug cartel they continually blame even exists ….. and why does that putative cartel seem more trustworthy than my government?