• Yeah, why shouldn’t we send all Republicans to another country? Or how about those criminals guilty of being Jewish, or black, or gay? Or how about the crime of “looking too Mexican,” like the US did to US citizens during Operations Wetback 1 & 2.

        Also, love how you even say “some of them are criminals,” not all of them. Meaning that you’re okay with gathering up some amount of innocent people and sending them to a different country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.

      • Basically nobody opposes deporting actual criminals (not political crimes). The problem is that it isn’t the cartel members and bank robbers who get rounded up when a factory is raided. And the mother fleeing persecution is treated the same as the drug kingpin.

        •  3DMVR   ( @3dmvr@lemm.ee ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          You’re asssuming they got mothers on this specific flight? I’ve seen nothing about innocents in this flight being posted, are these not straight up criminals on this flight? Can you show me articles I cant find any

      • Ah yes, because criminals are subhumans who should be exterminated like the cockroaches they are. And if we can’t take the trash out back like we should we can at least make it not our problem and make sure the cockroaches aren’t in our backyard. That’s what you’re saying right?

  •  sunglocto   ( @sunglocto@lemmy.zip ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    293 months ago

    Seems like Trump’s strategy is to now bully countries into getting what they want. "I want them out!!! I want Canada!!! I want Greenland!!!

    He’s basically the equivalent of the kid that flips over the monopoly table when someone bought a property before him.

      •  ryper   ( @ryper@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        113 months ago

        They should start now. Countries should cut off trading with the US once Trump starts making threats in their direction, instead of waiting for him to make up his mind and do something. He’s too used to there not being any consequences.

          • The problem with that is that anti-Russian sentiment is highest in the East, so there’s no way they will break off.

            Also Russia is not China, they barely have anything to give in a trade relationship. Also, the Ukraine invasion is scrounging up bad memories in most of the member states, so there’s that.

            In Hungary, arguably the country closest ideologically to Russia, EU membership has had a consistent 70-80% approval. They won’t break off.

            Also, the EU is designed to protect EU business interests against international ones, so they will go where the money is, and under Trump, that may cease to be the US.

            •  folaht   ( @folaht@lemmy.ml ) 
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              It’s highest in the North-East, lowest in the South East.

              There’s currently no direct land connection between Russia and Moldava/Slovakia/Romania/Hungary,
              and without it, there’s no potential protection.
              Georgia is already slowly turning around.

              Russia is an ally of China. What they have to give is the same as the EU (Germany) has to give with the US as their ally.

              So far the EU has done everything in power to not protect EU business interests and favor US business interests over anything else.

              • Are you from the Eastern EU?

                It’s not like that. The EU invests insane, Marshall-plan amounts of money into its Eastern member states, and it very visibly goes into infrastructure. Even stuff that is stolen by corruption is just money that goes into shit nobody needs, but still gets.

                Every second playgorund, every motorway and new line of rail, every scientific lab and every second pub has a big-ass sign next to it saying “Built for a kajillion Euros by the EU”.

                Relations with the US are also independent from relations to Germany/France/the EU, especially since the US doesn’t like to deal with the entire EU at once, since they can’t flex their muscles as much. The US also doesn’t really understand it, look at the new chip restrictions cutting the free market zone in half. All that also goes for China by the way.

                Russia is simply incapable of giving a better deal than the EU. It can’t afford and is not credible to even want to spend as much as the EU. Also, Estonian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Polish are official languages in Brussels, would they also be in Moscow? It’s just not comparable. And nobody needs Russia to trade with China. In fact, the big BnR rail line China/Serbia/Hungary is doing - the one that sparked the current protests that might mean the fall of the Russia/China aligned Serbian government - specifically avoids Russia. Most of current Chinese trade actually is mediated by the Netherlands and Romania/Bulgaria.

                All I’m saying is that from the Eastern European viewpoint, if the EU/US and China/Russia are both a bundle deal - I believe they are not - then everyone will choose the one that doesn’t have Russia in it. If it’s not, the US and China are not necessarily different as a trading partner.

  • Maybe the US should take back the US members of ISIS that have been left (along with the people from the other nations that joined ISIS) for the Kurds to keep.

  •  Rivalarrival   ( @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Criminals they forced into the United States” = “Invasion”

    “Repatriation” != “Deportation”

    Repatriation is what happens when you return a POW to their country of origin. Deportation is when you return a criminal to their country of origin.

    POWs are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system. They can be held indefinitely without charges, or returned to their country of origin, without judicial oversight. Since deportation is a judicial process, POWs are not subject to deportation.

    POWs are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law; Trump is arguing that the children of “invader-immigrants” can’t be citizens.

      • POWs do not need to be charged with a crime. Indeed, under international treaties and laws governing armed conflict, POWs generally can’t be criminally charged for simply participating in hostilities.

        They can be held without charge until the conclusion of hostilities. They are not entitled to the protections afforded to the accused, because they are not accused. They are not entitled to access to the criminal justice system.

        By describing them as “invaders”, he is suggesting that immigrants be treated as enemy combatants.

      • True. I should have been more clear: Deportation requires the involvement of the judicial branch. Repatriation has no such requirement. “Repatriation” is a more generic term for returning to one’s country of origin.

        I did not mean to suggest that “repatriation” was exclusive to POWs, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant to distinguish between judicial and non-judicial.

  •  Zerush   ( @Zerush@lemmy.ml ) 
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It would be a good idea that Mexico, Columbia and other latin countries promote the Trump Wall, but expelling all US residents in their countries. A wall always works in both directions.