This doesn’t relate to the US, but may be of some interest because of the legal process followed - it’s a recent real -world case of exclusion, if not deportation. It actually concerns a British citizen, born in Britain, subsequently stripped of her citizenship and permanently refused entry to Britain.
In February 2019, Begum was discovered alive at the al-Hawl refugee camp in Northern Syria by war correspondent Anthony Loyd. The following day, British Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship, stating that Begum would never be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. Begum initiated legal proceedings challenging the lawfulness of this decision. British courts ruled that Javid’s decision had been lawful, with the Supreme Court refusing Begum’s final attempt for permission to appeal on 7 August 2024. At the present time, Begum can launch no further legal challenge within the British legal system, but has, through her lawyers, intimated an intention to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
I’m curious. What were most of the detainees (whatever country) being deported for? Were they just generally people who had been found by ICE in their daily travels, or were these people who had committed crimes while in the country, hence no longer eligible to remain?
(I recall stories in days past of ICE trolling the local courts looking for illegals to deport. Of people who were stopped for traffic violations and then handed to ICE)
I’m assuming for entering the country illegally being as the cases were being handled by ICE. If they were facing regular criminal charges, the cases would have been handled by regular law enforcement.
But that said, I don’t really know the details. One thing people need to realize about the prison system is we have no involvement in arrests or trials. As I’ve often pointed out, we have no say in who gets sent to prison. Other people make those decisions and we just deal with the results.
Previous Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted to do the same in Canada - create two classes of citizens, those with another citizenship, that could then be stripped of their citizenship, and those who could not. For example, I was born in Canada, lived here all my life, but presumably if I were to, say, donate to the wrong charity in support of Gaza, I could have been deemed a terrorist and stripped of my citizenship and deported back to Britain where my parents came from.
I’m not sure if the British can strip someone of citizenship if they do not hold another citizenship.
His citizenship was reinstated after the Home Office accepted he is stateless as a result of having his British citizenship taken away from him.
There are plenty of people from Western countries sitting in ISIS detention camps waiting for their western governments to agree to accept them back. However, this is more along the lines of suspected criminals in detention also. The western govrnments prefer this arrangement rather than the complex paperwork and process of proving criminality and detaining them when they return.
Invading another country is the textbook definition of act of war. Invading Mexico would rapidly spiral out of control in horrorific ways for both sides.
Surely you can’t be serious here? If the US Army occupied northern Chihuaha, the Mexican Army couldn’t contest it without first fighting through the 7 different narco cartels that it’s failed to dominate for many years now. If there were any resistance, it would be coming from the cartels, and it wouldn’t be anything close to a fair fight as they have neither armor or air capabilities.
Not that I’m cheering for any of this, mind you, but in terms of pure military force the US could do whatever the hell it wanted in northern Mexico, for as long as it felt like, and no other country would lift a finger to intervene.
Or, did you mean that surely Trump would never do something so insane or illegal? I trust we all see the flaw in that theory.
Ah yes, because as we’ve seen in Gaza, nothing stops a well-equipped army from taking total control of an urban area - and having to go back over and over again. Especially when the enemy could be any adult male or otherwise in civilian clothes. Or adolescent.
And as I mentioned, the problem is not Mexico. The refugees come from further afield. Why would Mexico spend effort to try to remove them if they’re just passing through? It would be as expensive for them as it will be for the USA, except their southern border is less desert, harder to patrol. Of course, if the USA wants to pay for the troops and other expenses, maybe they can make an arrangement. Spending hundreds of millions to create Mexican jobs sounds like a crowd-pleaser for the US government.
Sure, no other country would be willing to directly fight the American forces in Mexico. But we’d see a reverse Ukraine. When a strong country invades a weak neighbor, the other countries in the neighborhood quickly sign military alliances with a superpower.
If we invaded Mexico, you’d see all of the rest of Central America and the Caribbean and South America looking to form military alliances with China or Russia. So we’d have troops in Mexico - and we’d be facing off against Chinese troops in Guatemala and Costa Rico and Columbia and Jamaica and Haiti.
shrug there are entire cities in Mexico that are owned and operated by narco cartels who are broadly feared and hated. I wouldn’t draw loose comparisons between Gaza and Mexico for obvious reasons.
Anyway, who’s talking about an urban area? I’m talking about the US Army setting up detention facilities close to the border, which is mostly thousands and thousands of miles of unoccupied desert.
If we were talking about conquering the whole of Mexico, maybe. But I think everyone is much too generous toward anyone’s appetite and ability to project significant force against America in the Western Hemisphere over the US taking over some unoccupied desert on the border. Mexico has demonstrated basically no ability to intervene against the narcos in this area. Hell, the narcos would probably work with the US, since half of them were originally trained at SoA in Ft. Benning anyway. Trump would pay them cash under the table and call them “immigration freedom fighters”.
Sure there would be some pushback, but “another Ukraine?” I’m sorry to say, but in terms of international military involvement, Ukraine isn’t even another Ukraine.
They are not foreigners; the US would be. The most likely result would be that the government, the “narcos” and the general citizenry would all unite in an attempt to make the US bleed as much as possible. We may have decided to push the Mexican/American war and our seizure of much of their territory (and our subsequent century + of bullying) into the memory hole, but they haven’t. That would push all their buttons, they’d see it as invasion and conquest by an enemy power and treat it as such. And while they can’t fight us head on, they can do just fine at guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
I’ll just note that Trump’s official stance is non-interventionism minus a quid-pro-quo.
To attack the cartels in Mexico, gratis, would directly conflict with The Most Honest Man in the World’s political philosophy. Y’all are taking globalism and, apparently, that’s bad in the new Republican party.
I think you’re severely underestimating the international reaction. If the United States sent American troops into Mexico it would be seen as an invasion. Because it would be.
It would involve killing brown people, something both he and his followers consider a desirable goal for its own sake. Don’t ignore the race war aspects of all this, it’s a much bigger a driver than the (false) economic excuses.
If they are trying to set up camps, why quadruple down on the problem by setting them in Mexico. A major problem with detention camps of any scale is supply. They will need to be located near where trucks can bring supplies, transports can bring people, not some isolated area of a foreign country - short supply routes, They wil need to be located near a large city and a decent sized airport, since few of the migrants are Mexicans, so they will likely have to fly home. Logisitics.
Plus, unless the camps are totally run by the military, you need to be near where a workforce lives. They you need contractors to build a camp for a few hundred thousand people at a time. (Using legal residents as construction workers) If it is run by the military, they will need barracks built there too.
As for the cartels… They don’t want the Mexican army running “their” towns. Why would they tolerate the US doing so? Especially when it’s the Americans, an insult to their national pride. Why would the USA ask for more trouble they don’t need?
They can set up the logistics hub in a border city on the US side, and run the actual encampment on Mexico’s side. The Rio Grande isn’t some impassable barrier, there are 4-lane highways running across it in multiple places.
I don’t think the cartels would get much of a say. Defying the anemic Mexican Army is one thing, defying the US Army’s 2nd Armored Division is something else entirely.
Occupying urban terrain is only hard if you care about preserving buildings and occupants. I don’t think Trump’s new military will overburden itself with that kind of consideration.
For what it is worth, I had to write a letter to the Brits once I turned 18 to renounce my UK citizenship, in order to keep my Zimbabwean citizenship.
The UK replied, saying, “that’s nice, dear” but refused to revoke it. So I kept both. South Africa (where I now live) is OK with dual nationality, so they know about the UK but not Zimbabwe (I am South African, too). Zimbabwe knows nothing, and the UK only knows about RSA. It’s a weird situation and I intend to keep it weird.
The less your government knows about outside alliances… the better. Especially in Zimbabwe’s case.
ETA, one of my friends is in the same boat, except she is UK/Nigeria/Zimbabwean which is hilarious because while she has birthright in Nigeria, she has only lived there for two weeks directly after her birth.