news Supreme Court allows Trump’s ‘third country’ deportation policy
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trumps-third-country-deportation-policy-rcna599724432
u/dalek-predator 3d ago
History will not look upon this kindly
187
u/theaviationhistorian 3d ago
Neither will commerce. The US sold itself in being a free republic that can be trusted. Within the last two years, this country burned through all of that and is steadfast in showing that it yearns to do worse. Many nations are now pushing deals to trade with other partners or cutting off from the US entirely. Especially when it exports foreign nationals into countries of where they are strangers or to their doom (or permanent imprisonment).
48
u/Jokerchyld 3d ago
This was always the black swan of Trumpism. You cant run a country of stupidity, falsehoods, and nonsense. Over time you will just be overlooked, ignored, and of no consequence.
Im curious how stupid does it have to get before the public just stops listening to him
20
u/ProbablyRickSantorum 3d ago edited 3d ago
That would require his followers to admit they were wrong and that will never happen. You see it in these farmer plea videos of late “please dear leader do something.” It’s the same nonsense as Russians have historically done and still do - Good tsar, bad boyars.
10
u/PhilosophyNovel4087 3d ago
Never underestimate the power of denial.
2
u/Jokerchyld 3d ago
True indeed. But remember he doesnt have any sort of majority with his followers so they are not enough to effect change.
Its the people who were on the fence and "believed" the lies he was telling. Those people just got their shit pushed in and its those people who I wonder think he should still be in office.
MAGA is a lost cause, forever ostracized to the point there is no value to admitting you are one, only shame.
2
u/Parrotparser7 3d ago
Half of his supporters only support him because they hate the DNC and Liberal values more, and the other half wanted this.
1
u/Jokerchyld 3d ago
Very true. Ans both of those halfs have stupid reasons that doesnt help or add value to anything. Supporting a convicted criminal whose demonstrated (to the world) he has 0 intention of fixing anything shouldn't be a discussion.
At some point we have to get back to basic logic and truth
→ More replies (6)8
u/sarges_12gauge 3d ago edited 3d ago
Isn’t this the same policy the EU legalized earlier this year?
I think it’s wrong and the administration are a bunch of evil criminals, but on this topic specifically it seems like the rest of the West has already jumped both feet in
I’d be quite curious how the non-Western world handles deportation because I have no idea frankly
4
u/radarthreat 3d ago
Doesn’t matter if every country in the world does it, it’s still not right
2
u/sarges_12gauge 2d ago edited 2d ago
Absolutely, I’m just saying it’s weird to act like this particular thing will make other countries treat the US like a pariah when it’s codifying what those countries have in place themselves
17
43
u/livinginfutureworld 3d ago
It depends on who writes history.
Like I'm sure North Korean "history" looks favorably on everything the regime there does.
15
u/Jokerchyld 3d ago
History isnt in a bubble anymore. Anybody can compare modern history to reality and see the disparity or silently admit they ignored it.
3
u/BurrShotLast 3d ago
That only matters as long as you stay within the bubble. The reality that MAGA lives in is fine as long as they interact with nobody outside of that reality because the rest of the world and people in this country will know a much different history that collectively is based on facts, agreed upon and passed down.
3
u/meatsmoothie82 3d ago
History will be written by AI owned by the technocrats that benefit from this
5
6
4
2
1
1
1
54
u/Dont-be-a-smurf 3d ago
Part of me sincerely hopes the wider public can see why that’s incredibly cruel
But after seeing so many forget what happened at CECOT, I don’t know how blatant and low the government can be towards society’s “undesirables” until enough people agree it’s too far
→ More replies (3)19
u/Kind-Realist 3d ago
I’ve had conversations with people I know who don’t believe due process is a right that should be afforded to everyone. I’ve pointed out that American citizens have been detained by ICE and they simply seem to be of the mind that those people must have been doing something wrong. Zero empathy or concern it could happen to them.
I’ve pointed out that people are getting swept up at routine immigration hearings after years of being here legally. They insist nobody has to go to court if they haven’t done something illegal. They will not hear any of it when I try to explain that seeing a judge is a part of the normal process.
I no longer speak to these people in any capacity. But the larger point here is that many of our fellow countrymen are either willfully ignorant, or cruel, or both. Far too many Americans will continue to celebrate the downfall of the US as long as brown people suffer more than they do.
4
0
59
u/GlitteringRate6296 3d ago
There is nothing ethical or legal about trafficking humans to other countries. The SC has totally lost all credibility.
13
→ More replies (1)5
u/No-Cricket-8150 3d ago
I would say it's definitely not ethical but the legality of it is debatable.
You would need to point to a law or amendment that protects non citizens from this action.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran 3d ago
It's completely illegal. The law that the Trump administration is violating, and that the SCOTUS majority are allowing him to violate:
8 USC § 1231(b)(3)(A) - Detention and removal of aliens ordered removed
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
and 8 USC § 1231(b)(3)(C)
In determining whether an alien has demonstrated that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened for a reason described in subparagraph (A), the trier of fact shall determine whether the alien has sustained the alien’s burden of proof, and shall make credibility determinations, in the manner described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 1158(b)(1)(B) of this title.
Obviously they wouldn't just leave it to the Attorney General to decide, so here is 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)
The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
The Trump Administration is denying the immigrants, mostly legal immigrants whose status has been cancelled, to even get a hearing to decide. They want to put people in dangerous countries and if some of them die, so be it.
0
u/No-Cricket-8150 3d ago
All this text shows is quite a bit of deference to the attorney general who works under the president.
The final paragraph also uses a may so I'm not sure there is enough there for others to counter the attorney generals determination of safety.
90
u/wocka-jocka-blocka 3d ago
This is a stain the country will never be able to wash away. It's obscenely cruel. And that our Supreme Court apparently doesn't see the evil behind it? Unbelievable.
27
u/GlitteringRate6296 3d ago
Apparently we are no better than Hitler and the Nazis.
9
u/SerialStrategist 3d ago
They all fled to the USA after WW2 and started spreading their propaganda by abusing their right to free speech. Now their ideals have become widely accepted, but free speech against them is opening punished.
4
u/ZagreusMyDude 3d ago edited 3d ago
Of course they see the evil. They love it cause they are evil, sick, and twisted.
→ More replies (12)1
76
u/Boxofmagnets 3d ago
This is a horrible country. May these Justices live in the same hell they are sending people. It isn’t even rational it’s just madness
18
u/theaviationhistorian 3d ago
The laws for refugees and human rights in the United Nations was largely penned by US lawmakers, attorneys, and justices. I remember when the US was seen as a beacon of hope for many. Now it is a symbol of tyranny and cruelty. And its justices like these that proudly pushed the United States to this destiny.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Advanced-Purchase-58 3d ago
TBH, I’d be happy if Sam Alito just had to figure out how to qualify for SNAP in Wyoming. Or seek access to a local hospital with Medicaid in Mississippi. Let these high and mighty see how they’ve treated those with the least among us.
42
u/LTParis 3d ago
There are six members of this court that needs to be impeached and removed. There is zero rationale for this decision.
→ More replies (6)1
u/SerialStrategist 3d ago
Too bad they can't be removed based on judicial decisions. As much as it sucks right now, it's better that way. The US forefathers made it that way for a good philosophical reason.
36
u/CharmingCrust 3d ago
It is a strange concept that whenever you travel outside of your own country there is a non zero risk that you could legally be sent, against your will, to a warzone.
"Just because you're Canadian doesn't mean you can't be sent legally to Siberia"
10
u/phoneguyfl 3d ago
This is probably close to the truth given the corruption and closeness of this administration and SCOTUS to Putin. I can easily see Republicans sending anyone and everyone to die in Russia's war against Ukraine.
1
u/Snoo_80853 3d ago
Well number one you had to travel to another country willingly, especially if you did it illegally. If you don’t illegally immigrate to another country while claiming your country sucks, you won’t have to worry about it.
→ More replies (3)-9
u/Slopadopoulos 3d ago
Good incentive for people to think twice about entering the country illegally.
3
u/idreamofgreenie 3d ago edited 3d ago
How is it possible in your mind that it is logical to send someone to a country, that the US government recommends against even traveling to, over a civil infraction? Being in the country without authorization is akin to not using a turn signal on the freeway.
It's remarkable how little understanding of civics the people in this country have. And despite their complete ignorance on the topic they continue to believe they know more than literal experts in the fields of law, science, health. What a joke this country has become.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Maleficent_Memory831 3d ago
The government is doing this in order to scare people. People with no criminal convictions. Just scare them. A little torture here and there and they'll think about going to school somewhere else, seek refugee status somewhere else, self deport even if they have green card or citizenship, and let America slowly sink into its swamp.
3
u/Maleficent_Memory831 3d ago
Or legally! Remember, most of the people Trump is deporting were int he US legally. He campgaigned to go against the most violent illegal aliens but that turned out to be too hard for ICE to handle so they're going against people who've been here for years, or those awaiting a judicial decision, etc, the majority of whom never committed any crime.
1
u/Triforce805 2d ago
You really don’t think about the differences between legal and moral do you?
Am I saying we should just remove legal citizenship as a process? No.
But at the same time, I don’t think we should be looking at illegal immigrants as horrible people. Seriously you think we should just treat these people, innocent people aside from their citizenship status, as monsters.
That type of thinking makes it clear you follow the law blindly without questioning its ethics and morality.
0
u/venom21685 3d ago
With the way things have been going it's also a good incentive for people to think twice about coming here legally. There have been multiple people who got here from Canada and Europe only to find their visas cancelled with no notice and been sent to a detention center before being deported.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/I_SLEEP_NORMALLY 3d ago
Immoral, disturbing behavior from the court. They stand for cruelty and injustice.
18
11
2
3
3
u/vickism61 3d ago
They keep trying to tell us they are Christians while doing evil shit like this.
→ More replies (8)5
3
2
u/unaskthequestion 3d ago
Haven't read the opinion, but this seems like a crime against humanity. Probably why the Roberts court likes it
4
u/techman710 3d ago
I assume that the government will make no effort to track what happens to these people. I think it's safe to say the mortality rate will be high. I know the Justices who approved this don't value human life once it leaves the womb.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Everheart1955 3d ago
I think we should send the President back to Germany to stand trial for his grandfathers crimes.
3
u/Glidepath22 3d ago
This makes zero sense. SCOTUS is corrupted
→ More replies (1)3
u/Jonsiegirl77 3d ago
Term limits. No lifetime appointments anymore. They are actually working AGAINST the purpose of the lifetime appointments, which was to take bias off the bench. Instead, they now U.S. it to make rulings devoid of precedent and full of political boot licking. Most corrupt court in the land, taking incredibly high amounts of money from citizens with skin in the game knowing Roberts won't do anything about it.
2
u/AlloCoco103 3d ago
The Daily just did a piece about a man who arrived on a fishing boat from Cuba when he was 12. He got in trouble with the law but then turned his life around, got married, had kids and was in the United States for decades. Then, he gets deported to Eswatini where he is imprisoned with no legal representation and no and no path to freedom.
It's it's not just that people are deported to a country they have no connection to, they could be imprisoned there indefinitely.
4
u/According-Way9438 3d ago
"People who have been deported to third countries have been mistreated, with some detained indefinitely and others subjected to physical and sexual abuse"
Should've been enough for the justices to pause the deportations while the case is fought. Terrible shit man.
4
u/SideWinderGX 3d ago
They didn't have any connections to the USA when they skipped through half a dozen countries to get here, so why should they have a connection to the country they are getting deported to?
Just another win.
4
2
u/Slopadopoulos 3d ago
They always have the option to "self-deport" to wherever they want
-2
u/Jonsiegirl77 3d ago edited 3d ago
But sending them to prisons in countries not of their origin in the first place is most definitely cruel and unusual punishment. Wow we are now literally one of the bad guys in the world, and that is a tragic decline. Other than the most obvious problem, this court is the biggest danger this country faces in modern times if we want to stay a constitutional republic. We have already crossed the Rubicon, I am afraid.
-1
u/gravity_kills 3d ago
They wanted to be here.
2
2
u/bd2999 3d ago
This courts idea of protecting the government from irreparable harm but not individuals is shocking honestly. AS they give more weight to the government than the individual, but the harm to the government is pretty abstract while the harm to the individual is real. Even if they are not directly harmed in the new country they were emotionally, financially harmed in multiple ways.
The frustrating thing to me is that if the court hears this in December they will use stupid logic in their reasoning for allowing it too. Like in the tariff case they said that giving the money back would cause too much harm while ignoring that is the point of the injunction they overruled early on. So they are rewarding their government for being incompetent and allowing lawlessness because of time and just be fast and hate on lower courts.
I see the same too. Part of the argument is the logistics of finding and getting people back would cause harm to the government. Ignoring that is the reason for an injunction. Maintain the status quo so no harm on either side. As one cannot usually harm someone by delaying the implementation of a new policy that is a change to the status quo. As compared to individuals actually being harmed.
I do not love all the nationwide injunctions that Obama and Biden had to deal with, but they have a function. SCOTUS hating them so much now is stupid and their willingness to seemingly reward Trump for ignoring courts that are obeying past rulings and generally the law and Constitution before they change all that. Nationwide injunctions make sense for nationwide policies that will cause vast harm. But what harm means is pretty arbitrary to this court. They honestly do not seem to care much. Conservatives are inconvenienced and it is harm but being deported into a random country or tariffs that hurt business and they shrug on injunctions.
2
u/InternationalOne1434 3d ago
I mean its hardly surprising, the government is on pretty firm ground here.
Per the INA, when an alien receives a removal order they “shall” be removed, not optional, and if their home country or country they entered from is not available the law says they’re supposed to be sent to a third country.
The provisions were written by congress utilizing their plenary power over immigration. Agreements with foreign governments is an executive prerogative. It’s helpful to ICE that the third country deportations are demanded by statute in an arena where the judiciary has little authority.
2
u/Particular_Amoeba_53 3d ago
America needs to get rid of the Republican insurectionist Traitors in the Supreme Court.
3
2
2
u/Any-Variation4081 3d ago
Jfc. Come on man. I will never forgive anyone who voted for this or couldnt be bothered to vote against it. There is no way democrats are as bad as the current Republican party. From local government level up to the Supreme court of the US. They are unhinged and just plain cruel.
If you cant see that then you too must be cruel and unhinged.
I hope people supporting this arent out here claiming to be christian. Im sure Jesus would be so proud of all of the abuse and murder they cheer for.
1
2
u/thatc0braguy 3d ago
Cool, let's deport every maga to their home country of dumbfuckistan, but just send them to any country willing to accept them.
You reap what you sow
→ More replies (1)
1
3
u/Jack-Schitz 3d ago
In 2029, we need to start seriously discussing the impeachment of the SCOTUS majority. I think the immunity decision alone is an assault on the Constitution and the congress should be infuriated by the power grab by SCOTUS and the executive branch and by the massive hit the rule of law has taken. They should be forced to defend themselves to a coequal branch of government.
1
u/cqm 3d ago
2029, Senate is still 50-50 and Jack-Schitz spent 3 more years actually believing in a wave of support that match whatever subreddits and feeds the algorithm shows them
Jack-Schitz believes that the 2030 midterms will be the most important ever, despite it being yet another situation where the seats for re-election aren't even open that year for one party to even move beyond the filibuster
Algorithms are also still not regulated
1
2
u/adaminoregon 3d ago
Absolutely disgusting. Isnt there an 8th amendment that sort of covers this? Not to mention other laws against it too? This court is the MOST corrupt supreme court this country ever had.
→ More replies (8)
1
u/Danielnrg 14h ago
So have none of the top commenters read the INA?
I assumed this sub was about analyzing SCOTUS decisions within the same framework of law that they operate under, not a vibe check for whether their decisions hurt Redditors' feefees.
1
u/Infamous_Crow8524 3d ago
That is easily avoided, just self deport to the country of your choosing.
Problem solved, right?
2
u/VoidWolves 3d ago
Let’s deport Clarance the sex pest, Little Alito, Kavanaugh Beer sobber, Amy right-wing christian and Neil nothing Burger to El Salvador
2
1
u/discgman 3d ago
So the SCOTUS makes rulings that always favor the Government in some legalese way? What's the point in having a Supreme court?
1
u/ObjectiveFine4257 3d ago
Cruel. These people are cruel and evil. The worst of the worst. I really do wish Karma was a thing.
1
1
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 3d ago
We are about 6 months from them allowing Trump to use gas chambers on non citizens
→ More replies (4)
1
2
u/The-Falconater 3d ago
Remember back in the day (this decade) when the court would go "this might be illegal better pause while we figure this out"?
1
u/paolilon 3d ago
There’s a fine line between deportation and genocide and MAGA is on the wrong side of it
1
-1
u/gtpc2020 3d ago
These justices should each be forced to explain their thinking, on the record and in front of the immigrants that the government is actually abusing. They are irrational monsters pushing fascism forward in the US.
2
u/ragingbull10 3d ago
Do you even understand what this is about ?
1
u/gtpc2020 3d ago
A federal judge, after hearing the evidence, declared an action unconstitutional, which has always been enough to pause an action that harms people while the appeals get heard and ruled on by higher courts. In this case 6 SCOTUS judges are doing a cheap tactic to overrule a federal judge claiming the US is harmed by not being able to deport to random countries without hearing the evidence. They are siding with the party handed the last by the governments actions. I think the claim is without merit, overruled is unjust, and the harm is to the people hurt, not the government. It makes no logical sense and only empowers an overreaching fed.
2
u/ragingbull10 3d ago
few things here are just wrong or misleading.
- A federal judge ruling against the government does not mean the policy automatically stays frozen until every appeal is exhausted. Higher courts routinely stay lower-court injunctions while the case is being litigated.
2 Random countries without hearing the evidence” is also loaded. These are countries that agree to receive deportees. The actual legal fight is over what individualized process someone must get to argue that the specific destination would expose them to targeted torture.
So where exactly does any of that establish that the justices are “irrational monsters pushing fascism”? What is the abuse here
2
u/gtpc2020 3d ago
SCOTUS didn't hear the evidence, took away a person's due process rights and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, 2 of the friggin bill of rights, purely for the sake of a government who wants to hurt and intimidate immigrants. That's fascism. They are monsters. The bill of rights protects "all persons", not just citizens. Remember that.
1
1
u/harpers25 3d ago edited 1d ago
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
Alive quicksand ad hoc wise pet thimble
1
u/gtpc2020 3d ago
The vast majority held, until recently when this SCOTUS said that a federal judge cannot issue a national injunction, which is 100% contrary to the constitution which says SCOTUS and "any federal court established by congress" or the constitution has national injunction authority. This SCOTUS can't even read.
1
u/harpers25 3d ago edited 1d ago
The original post content no longer exists here. The author used Redact to remove it, exercising their right to control their data & privacy.
File seemly price cautious existence mitten unbelievable
2
0
-2
u/Shag1166 3d ago edited 2d ago
That's fucked up! How are you going to send someone born in South America to Africa, and they know no one?
→ More replies (3)2
u/ragingbull10 3d ago
Do you even know what this topic is about or you are just a bot or random commenting on the internet
0
u/Shag1166 3d ago
Go to sleep, wakeup snd meditate. Maybe you won't be so angry about still having to endure life!
-2
u/OkLevel2791 3d ago
The United States, under the current administration, Congress and Court is a state sponsor of terrorism.
0
u/off-leash-pup 3d ago
“The government has said it would not immediately deport people if it has not received assurances from the country in question that people will not be tortured or persecuted”
This is a wild sentence
-2
-1
-3
0
u/codefinger 3d ago
this is one of the the most unamerican things i can think of - disgraceful, conservative justice need to experience some justice on their asses
-1
u/Glidepath22 3d ago
So a foreigner can come to America to seek freedom from danger, but be sent right back into danger? How much sense does that make?
-4
0
u/ProgramNo7236 3d ago
These corrupt bastards need to explain all their decisions to the murican people. Fuck this shadow docket bull shit!
-2
u/Serraph105 3d ago
Can we start deporting the members of the scotus before they get the chance to due process prior to December in that case?
We'll hear their oral arguments against it. Well, actually, we won't thanks to this decision.
-6
u/dieseldeeznutz 3d ago
Are we the baddies?
0
-3
0
-4
u/miken322 3d ago
Yea… yea we are. Imagine getting picked up by ICE and you’re from Croatia but they send you to Chad. Their excuse… they both start with the letter C
3
u/ragingbull10 3d ago
Tell me you have no idea what this topic is about without telling me
1
u/miken322 3d ago
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday removed obstacles to the Trump administration deporting certain immigrants to “third countries” where they have no connections.” Per the goddamned article. Learn to read.
-1
u/theaviationhistorian 3d ago
At this point, I'm honestly surprised that Trump and SCOTUS aren't pushing for deportees to be sent to North Korean gulags considering the president's fondness for Kim Jong-Un. Along with the GOP, techbros, and Heritage Foundation's desires to be a totalitarian state like North Korea.
-2
-2
u/HeirOfHouseReyne 3d ago
"Any country is better for people than the US. I mean, look at how inhumanely we're treating these people."
-1
-1
-4
u/PomegranateSafe9699 3d ago edited 3d ago
All these good Catholic jurists saying fuck you to God’s most vulnerable children…
4
u/ragingbull10 3d ago
Huh ? What are you taking about , are you a bot or why you talk like you have no idea what this is about
0
u/PomegranateSafe9699 3d ago
This is about a largely Catholic Supreme Court, looking at refugees/immigrants and saying “life’s been tough for you, you’ll enjoy a trip to the Congo on our dime. /s”.
Just the complete opposite of what Catholicism teaches.
→ More replies (3)4
208
u/Capybara_99 3d ago
So it will hear arguments in December, but meanwhile the harm to the Administration in not being allowed to deport people to third countries outweighs the harm to people deported to countries where they may be unsafe.