Because they havent been paid to do so yet. They dont work for us.
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
168 points (96.2% liked)
No Stupid Questions
40271 readers
1229 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because then most of the people being deported right now would just be deported to the US, causing a paradox and unfolding reality.
Because they are sociopaths that have zero empathy for those they deport.
it's not a law that one country can make. it's a law that requires agreement between countries via international treaty
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.
it's not a law that one country can make. it's a law that requires agreement between countries via international treaty
Whoosh
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.
Were? There’s guys still there
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.
The Uyghurs in Guantanamo didn't want to go back to China.
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.
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”.
Because both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans who are 100% in support of everything the regime is doing.
I bet the general answer from congress would be "Why? It's not our country's problem where they end up once out of here"
Because our laws only protect the wealthy, enforce racism, sexism and are getting worse and more genocidal in real time
Because Congress doesn't care about the well-being of those people. Why else would this nuance be inserted into the law?
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.
......what? I need a source for this, please. 😧
It's called the "Laken Riley Act", and it allows for the deportation of people who have simply been "charged" with a criminal offense. They don't have to be tried or convicted...just officially accused.
Heres the list of the 12 dems that voted to pass it. I see Mark Kelly again. Slotkin, fetterman. A whose who of Dnc absolute douchbags who all need to be removed from the party. I hope Hogg gets them all tossed.
https://rollcall.com/2025/01/20/democrats-senate-laken-riley-act/
Why isn't rape or assault in there >.> Not that I agree with this to begin with but still
They protect their own.
Because then they’d have to deport most Republican lawmakers.
Laws don't matter. The government is breaking laws left, right and centre.
Republicans don't care.
Because congress is complicit
Because then they wouldn't be able to deport actual US citizens who aren't the right color. I mean, if they actually respected the rule of law and weren't already breaking dozens of them.
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".
In case of the US they'll ask “Oh? You reject him? You and what army?”
You can't really deny the US much, y'know.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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)
Unfortunately for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he is from El Salvador and in 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador.
Right. That is why the Administration position on this has some merit which the courts need to defer to. As an El Salvadoran who is back in his home country, the US cannot compel his release. All the US can do is ask nicely.
But, they haven't even done that. Which is why the courts are so pissed. They know all this, and they know that all the administration has to do is prove they asked, in good faith. They won't even go that far. They did that performative thing where the El Salvadoran President said "We won't send him back since he's a criminal", but the courts in the US don't consider him a criminal.
There is no better definition of "contempt of court" then what the US is doing right now.
I know you're not defending the administration, but I wouldn't consider the administration's position to have any merit. They sent him to the prison and are paying for him to be imprisoned there. Giving them an inch of credibility on technicalities just means they'll continue to do what they're doing.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
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.)
Because people facing deportation aren't billionaire campaign donors, so the law doesn't work for them
Some people face persecution in their home country.
And take this scenario:
Someone from Country A travels to Country B and commits a crime, and then travels to Country C without permission.
Where should Country C deport this person to?
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.
Congress hasn't passed much of anything lately. They just let Trump do his executive orders. But even if they felt like doing anything at all, the GOP has control and can count on a few Dems to follow along.
Because the cruelty of it is the entire point. People still like to imagine those in power have some sort of misguided moral compass or reasoning. They do not. They are pure, unadulterated evil.
view more: next ›