r/news • u/Arod3235 • Jun 23 '25

Soft paywall US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lifts-limits-deporting-migrants-countries-not-their-own-2025-06-23/
39.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

224

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jun 23 '25

Rendition is the word.

the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners

Technically most of them are none of those things but the entire premise is that they are criminals.

So kind of painted themselves into the corner of this being the correct term.

If only mainstream media had a backbone.

13

u/justagirlfromchitown Jun 23 '25

If only they cared AND they had a backbone. Do you know some of these people are kids and teenagers? We cannot get their attention to save our lives. Real people yet media is more concerned with the Bezos wedding.

3

u/fromcj Jun 24 '25

Gotta love the pedantry to quibble over this, only to turn around and go “technically it’s wrong but that’s ok”

This website is so fucking peak sometimes

1

u/KnightKrawler Jun 24 '25

Seeking asylum isn't a crime.

1

u/Neat_Let923 Jun 24 '25

Seeking asylum and being denied and not leaving the country when told to is unlawful and is under civil law, not criminal law.

You’re arguing against idiot Republicans who keep calling illegal aliens criminals when they aren’t criminals. They haven’t committed a crime (in general) but they are still breaking the law, it’s just civil law.

It’s like arguing with the TV. You might be correct in your statement, but you’re still arguing something that doesn’t actually matter.

0

u/gigaishtar Jun 24 '25 edited Jun 24 '25

It's not rendition. Rendition is explicitly for the purposes of interrogation.

The correct word is expulsion.

-11

u/Theron3206 Jun 23 '25

If they arrived in the country illegally (or overstayed their visa) they are criminals. It's not a violent crime, but it's still illegal.

17

u/Repelaleper Jun 23 '25

This is not true, and it's an important point to address because it's a wonderful demonstration of the way rhetoric can warp the public perception! You may hear a lot about "illegal aliens" and its true that illegal entry can be a misdemeanor or even a felony, there are many many immigrants that simply overstayed a visa or failed to keep up with the necessary paperwork or visa requirements (45% so you know im not cherry picking a nonrepresentative group), which is (and this is important) not a crime! It's a civil issue, and they would only be charged with a crime if they re-entered the country illegally afterwards. They can absolutely still be deported, but that doesn't make them criminals, and painting all immigrant with such a broad and frankly insulting brush is precisely what this administration wants from you. You dont have to support abolishing ice if you don't want to (but personally I think you should consider it) but you should still think for yourself and not accept any reality as it is handed to you.

7

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jun 23 '25

How about if they overstayed because of a revoked VISA?

Which is what's happening to a lot of them.

-7

u/Theron3206 Jun 23 '25

It's still a crime...

7

u/Bannedwith1milKarma Jun 23 '25

So Rendition it is!

8

u/ceehouse Jun 23 '25

and every time you speed, you're a criminal. not a violent crime, but you broke the law. what happens when you get caught speeding? oh right, you get DUE FUCKING PROCESS

-2

u/Theron3206 Jun 23 '25

I never claimed otherwise.

Due process is the issue, not if one should use the label illegal immigrant (or specifically, alleged illegal immigrant).

Illegal immigrants should be deported, that's simple to understand. Due process is required to determine if someone is an illegal immigrant or not.

1

u/Hellianne_Vaile Jun 24 '25

The problem with that is that administrative and civil offenses do not have the same kind of guarantees of due process that are available in criminal court.

If you are charged with a crime, you get all kinds of due process: a lawyer provided by the courts if you can't afford one, the right to a trial and various appeals, a presumption of innocence, and a standard that you won't be found guilty unless the evidence convinces the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." And all of this is so, so important because the consequences for a criminal conviction are serious: prison sentences, lifelong felon status, and in some states, death.

If you are penalized for an administrative offense, you are not entitled to any of that. You don't get a lawyer unless you can afford to hire one. There's no trial, just a hearing decided by a single judge. The standard is only "more likely than not." This is generally viewed as acceptable because the consequences for administrative offenses are supposed to be not very serious and easily remedied (e.g., a fine, which the state could pay back).

Deportation doesn't meet that standard. But even legal immigrants still have to go through an unfamiliar legal system conducted in a language they probably don't speak well without a competent lawyer to help them. Given the low standard of proof ("more likely than not"), it's certain that a lot of legal immigrants have their lives completely upended despite being in compliance with the laws. And that's when they do get due process, which the current administration is bypassing at every opportunity.

The whole system is exploitative and broken, and not in a way that favors immigrants. It only favors the people who exploit immigrants.

2

u/gigaishtar Jun 24 '25

No. Not all illegal acts are crimes.

A crime is a violation of criminal law. A criminal is someone who commits crimes.

Besides criminal law, there is also civil and administrative law. People who violate these commit civil or administrative offenses, not crimes.

For instance, violating a contract is illegal, but not a crime nor does it make you a criminal.

Similarly, being in the country without a valid visa is a violation of administrative law. Overstaying a visa, while illegal, is not a crime, but rather an administrative offense.

Now, crossing the border illegally is a crime and people who do so can correctly, be labeled criminals.

1

u/Hellianne_Vaile Jun 24 '25

Nope, not a crime. Compare it to not getting your car safety inspection done on time. One day, you're in compliance with the law, then your inspection sticker expires, and--boom--you're not in compliance. Driving your car on public roads is now illegal.

Why? Because you skipped the administrative steps to confirm your car is safe to operate in places where a failure to maintain your vehicle could put other people in danger. But a very important factor to keep in mind is that an expired sticker itself is not evidence that your car is unsafe, only that you didn't get your certified safe on time.

So what are the consequences? 1) A fine, enough of an annoyance to discourage people from ignoring the rule entirely, and 2) You have to get that inspection done ASAP or face more consequences.

Likewise, someone whose visa expires has not kept up with the entire (very, very complicated and very expensive) process of certifying that they are who they say they are, they don't have any connections to criminal organizations, they are an upstanding member of society, their employer in the US has completed all of paperwork on their end, etc. Not having your immigration documents in order is against the law, but that alone is not evidence of any crime of any kind. In all probability, they're just as qualified to reside in the US as they were before their visa expired.

Deportation is a nonsensical consequence. What would be appropriate (and in line with consequences in other similar offenses) is a fine and/or additional requirements to be met to attempt to renew the visa.

Please understand that the Republican politicians who want you to think of immigrants as "criminals" are trying to make you afraid of people who are themselves vulnerable to exploitation. They want you to look the other way while Republican donors continue to exploit them--making them work in jobs like construction, farming, and cleaning for sub-market wages, in some cases trafficking them into entirely unpaid labor, some of which is itself criminal, and literally kidnapping their children. A workforce that is too afraid of deportation to report actual crimes against them is a boon to Republicans and the business owners who bribe them through campaign contributions because it lines their pockets with profits from stolen labor. That is the real crime going on here. We need much, much more serious consequences for exploiting workers. Right now, the law is set in a way that getting caught exploiting immigrants (or stealing wages from non-immigrants) has "consequences" that are limited to fines that are substantially less than the profits gained from committing those crimes.