←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 1 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
stewx ◴[19 Mar 25 12:34 UTC] No.43411024[source]▶
My takeaway from this is that laws and rules don't matter if the officials on the ground are incompetent, ignorant, and have contempt for you.

There is a lot of unnecessary cruelty and lack of due process in this story.

replies(5): >>43411090 #>>43411286 #>>43411452 #>>43413749 #>>43413773 #
freehorse ◴[19 Mar 25 12:42 UTC] No.43411090[source]▶
I sort of disagree. There _is_ a process, which optimises for holding people as long as possible for the prison industrial complex to make money. When you privatise these kind of social services, this is what happens. This is not due to a few officials on the ground that just happened by chance to be "incompetent, ignorant, and have contempt for you". As the article concludes,

> The reality became clear: Ice detention isn’t just a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s a business. These facilities are privately owned and run for profit.

> Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government funding based on the number of people they detain, which is why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It’s a lucrative business: CoreCivic made over $560m from Ice contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group made more than $763m from Ice contracts.

> The more detainees, the more money they make. It stands to reason that these companies have no incentive to release people quickly. What I had experienced was finally starting to make sense.

replies(2): >>43411118 #>>43411148 #
almostgotcaught ◴[19 Mar 25 12:45 UTC] No.43411118[source]▶
> There _is_ a process, which optimises for holding people as long as possible for the prison industrial complex to make money

"due process" is what you are due - it is what is afforded to you by the 4th amendment and habeus corpus. Op is correct.

replies(2): >>43411187 #>>43411399 #
pjc50 ◴[19 Mar 25 13:07 UTC] No.43411399[source]▶
However, the US has long been very clear: constitutional rights only apply to citizens. US law is perfectly happy with arbitrary brutality towards non-citizens.

(ECHR is different on this, which has caused a lot of controversy in the UK from people who want to be arbitrarily brutal towards non-citizens)

replies(3): >>43411541 #>>43411798 #>>43416617 #
jcranmer ◴[19 Mar 25 13:36 UTC] No.43411798[source]▶
> However, the US has long been very clear: constitutional rights only apply to citizens.

Nope, most of the constitutional rights apply to all people under the jurisdiction of the US. It's why the Bush administration set up Guantanamo--to try to evade any hint of constitutional protection, and he still failed that. (Of course, as Guantanamo also shows, the remedies available to people whose constitutional rights have been grossly violated by the government are quite lacking.)

replies(1): >>43412478 #
Aspos ◴[19 Mar 25 14:28 UTC] No.43412478[source]▶
> constitutional rights apply to all people

Not within 100 miles of the border unfortunately. https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

replies(2): >>43413757 #>>43416823 #
1. motorest ◴[19 Mar 25 16:01 UTC] No.43413757[source]▶
> Not within 100 miles of the border unfortunately.

Taken from your link:

> In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”

It seems that non-US citizen still have rights, but abuse is rampant within the US border patrol.