←back to thread

I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 6 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 1.295s | source | bottom
Show context
CaffeineLD50 ◴[19 Mar 25 12:35 UTC] No.43411033[source]▶
I suspect they are under pressure to juke their stats and they could get a gold star for "deporting" her.

Ergo "you aren't a criminal. Come with me. You're being deported."

replies(3): >>43411074 #>>43411211 #>>43412234 #
Gigachad ◴[19 Mar 25 12:40 UTC] No.43411074[source]▶
This is what America did in the Middle East after 9/11. Just collect up some random people. Claim they are terrorists and send them to Guantanamo bay where they are tortured and raped for a few years for no reason other than to claim they are solving terrorism.
replies(2): >>43411180 #>>43411212 #
ttyprintk ◴[19 Mar 25 12:50 UTC] No.43411180[source]▶
There was an interesting prelude: once the flight restrictions were lifted after 9/11, the FBI packed up 140-160 relatives of Osama Bin Laden living in USA and quietly flew them out of the country.
replies(1): >>43411398 #
Etheryte ◴[19 Mar 25 13:07 UTC] No.43411398[source]▶
This sounds odd, how does someone even have 140-160 relatives who are alive?
replies(2): >>43413259 #>>43413745 #
1. 9rx ◴[19 Mar 25 15:24 UTC] No.43413259[source]▶
Depends on what you consider related, but that's about how many I'd expect to show up at a family reunion.
replies(2): >>43413485 #>>43413683 #
2. ◴[19 Mar 25 15:40 UTC] No.43413485[source]▶
3. Etheryte ◴[19 Mar 25 15:56 UTC] No.43413683[source]▶
Assuming four generations attend, that would work out to over four kids per couple. Older generations often had a lot of kids, but that still sounds like a pretty high number to me.

First gen: 1 person, plus 1 spouse, for 2 people.

Second gen: 4 children of the 1st gen, plus 4 spouses, for 8 additional people.

Third gen: 16 children of the 2nd gen, plus 16 spouses, for 32 additional people.

Fourth gen: 64 young children, no spouses.

Adds up to 106 people in total. For 140-160 people, that would be even more children per couple. Unless I mixed the numbers up somewhere, that sounds like a lot of kids, no?

replies(1): >>43414248 #
4. 9rx ◴[19 Mar 25 16:36 UTC] No.43414248[source]▶
> Assuming four generations attend

In my neck of the woods that would only be considered a "family gathering". You will see that group on a fairly regular basis (holidays, birthdays, quiet weekend, etc.) A "family reunion", indicating reuniting of family that doesn't see each other so often, extends further – at least five or even six generations.

But also 4 kids is nothing for a Bin Laden. Maybe if you multiply by 10...!

replies(1): >>43414734 #
5. Etheryte ◴[19 Mar 25 17:16 UTC] No.43414734{3}[source]▶
I'm assuming there's a mixup here with what you take the word "generation" to mean? A generation is generally all the people of a rough age group, so your parents and your spouse's parents are from the same generation. A generation is usually considered to be roughly 25-30 years wide, since that's about when people have kids. I wouldn't really say it's realistic for six generations to attend, that would mean everyone involved had their kids once they turned 18 and the oldest one attending is still 108 years old.
replies(1): >>43414858 #
6. 9rx ◴[19 Mar 25 17:25 UTC] No.43414858{4}[source]▶
No mixup, but the intent was to mean where the most recent common ancestor goes back five, maybe six generations. The eldest generations may not be in attendance (or alive), but their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren... That is the point where, around here, family starts to fragment enough that they rarely see each other but still maintain enough ties to want to occasionally reunite.