How can deporting someone to a strange country -- where they've never lived & don't know the language -- not be "cruel &

[eppur_se_muova]

unusual punishment" ??

The State Dept. has issued strong travel advisory about visiting Uganda, meaning it's *dangerous* -- so deporting someone there is endangering their safety.

Tenth Article:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ratified:
December 15, 1791
Eighth Amendment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Of course, when has this administration given a damn about anyone's rights, or the laws that guarantee them ?

[KT2000]

1. Exactly!

It IS cruel and unusual punishment.

[malaise]

2. It is

Rec

[speak easy]

3. "& don't know the language"

Uganda speaks English. So does South Sudan. Just sayin'.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. It's complicated ....

There is American English, UK English, and when you go to Uganda, you are likely to hear what is known as Uglish (Ugandan English).

What Influences Uglish?

As with any other country, Ugandans have carried their native-speaking patterns over to English. For instance, the languages under the Banty family don’t have consonants that are sounded alone.

Where there is a consonant, there has to be an accompanying vowel.

This is why a word like ‘pen’ is likely to be pronounced as ‘peni’ in Uglish. ‘Alfred’ becomes something like ‘Alifuredi.’
***
This is how language works in Uganda.

English is for formal communications in government, education, and corporate systems.

Luganda is the language of the people. You will hear this language in inter-ethnic communication, media, and telecommunications, church preaching, as well as in urban music.

Even the Ugandans who are not part of the Baganda ethnicity find themselves speaking Luganda because it is so common. Since this dialect dominates Kampala, the capital city of the country, it’s almost essential for urban area citizens to learn it.

Swahili makes an appearance on the Ugandan shilling notes, and also features on notice boards at the court.
***
more: https://bunnystudio.com/blog/the-official-and-unofficial-languages-of-uganda/

[speak easy]

20. Just 2 clarify,

spending to people to 3rd party countries is an abomination, whatever the language issues may be.

[William Seger]

4. They are saying undocumented immigrants don't have ANY constitutional rights

... otherwise, Garca would already be free on habeas corpus.

[Solly Mack]

5. The Trump Regime wants him dead without being the ones who do the actual killing.

Oh, they would be guilty of murder, same as pulling the trigger but this way they'll claim it wasn't their fault.

[bronxiteforever]

6. Kick and recommend

[irisblue]

7. The tv show Law & Order was fiction. Yet so many expect Sam Watterson IRL

[AverageOldGuy]

8. Cruelty is the point.

With Trump, cruelty is the point. Cruelty is the purpose.

[Melon]

9. My understanding is that immigrants always have first

Option of returning to their home country. Is this correct? So this is people who’s home country won’t accept them back( I thought their was international law that countries can’t do that), or that they are claiming their life is in danger so they can’t return safely but were denied status here.

[Wiz Imp]

14. Yes, They always have a right to "self-deport" to their home country. But many came to the US to begin with to escape

danger in their home country so for many, that is not a realistic option.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. That was KAG's situation. They could have deported him to Costa Rica instead, but refused. nt

[Melon]

19. Costa Rica sounds culturally preferable to getting shipped to

Africa….

[H2O Man]

10. Recommended.

The question answers itself: it is intentionally cruel. Individuals like Stephen Miller and Brian Kohberger get off on cruelty.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Legally, deportation isn't punishment.

So the 8th amendment doesn't apply. The 8th amendment primarily limits criminal punishment - and in limited cases - excessive civil fines.

[LeftInTX]

21. Last week some were claiming that Nicole Collier choosing to stay on the House floor was false imprisonment.

She had a choice: Guard to assure she doesn't leave the state or stay in the Capitol. She spent two nights in the House floor.

[Ms. Toad]

22. That would vary depending on state law. In most states it would be false imprisonment.

And there are two forms of false imprisonment - civil and criminal. Generally, criminal false imprisonment requires worse behavior.

To start with, while they have the authority under the Texas constitution to compel her attendance if she is absent. At the time she was sleeping in the capitol, there was no business being conducted for which she was required to be present. Therefore the state has no right to restrict her movements to compel attendance until a session at which her attendance is required materializes.

But false imprisonment isn't just physically restraining movement. It includes, in most states, giving someone a choice to leave only if they accept conditions which are the equivalent of confinement, or are which are coercive or intimidating. Whether the choice she was given rises to the level of false imprisonment will be a matter of state law. It likely meets the definition of at least the tort of false imprisonment (it would, under the generic tort law I taught - but each state gets to make its own laws). Whether she can convince a Texas jury of that is another question.

[LeftInTX]

23. She was free to move around the Capitol, but guard(s) were assigned to make sure she did not leave the building.

As you stated, the guard could compel her to attend the House when in session.

It was her decision to stay in the House chamber overnight. She could go to her office. It was a "good trouble" type thing.

Gene Wu stayed with her overnight. They turned the cameras off around 1 am. The next day, some of her colleagues tore up their guard permission slips and were thus compelled to stay in the Capitol, and so five of them spent the night etc.

Gene Wu also had guards assigned to him. Every Democrat (except five) had guards assigned to them. The guards followed them around and made sure they went to the Capitol etc. The Democrats were under surveillance, but they were free to do whatever in their free time as long as they did not leave the state. Several of them dragged their guards to a Stonewall meeting at a gay bar in Dallas https://www.chron.com/culture/article/texas-democrats-nicole-collier-venton-jones-20826217.php

The DPS antics come as Collier refused to leave the House floor, spending two nights living out of the chamber, though she was also permitted to visit her office. Collier was joined by several other Democratic representatives, who shredded their previously signed permission slips and re-entered the House chamber to protest

I believe the guard duty ended on Wednesday. Democrats are no longer under guard since the bill passed. They also are not compelled to attend. They told the Speaker they would only break quorum for bills that threaten Democracy and they would only break quorum for the redistricting bill. When they came back, they told the Speaker they would attend the session and that they didn't need guards because they had their word. But they were assigned guards anyway. Apparently, the members are supposed to pay for the guards, but I think that will be challenged.

[Ms. Toad]

24. It's the surveillance and guard duty if they left the building that makes them not free to leave.

Being free to leave a building you are not legally required to remain in as long as you (1) don't leave the state and (2) agree to be surveilled is not the same as having a free choice to leave the building. In most jurisdictions, that would constitute false imprisonment (or a similar tort).

I agree it was "good trouble," but it was also likely a tort committed against them. And, assuming Texas law is similar to generic tort law, all of the Democrats who were permitted to leave only if they agreed to have guards assigned should consider pursuing tort claims against those who held them.

[LeftInTX]

26. Got it! She filed a lawsuit. I don't believe anyone else did.

[Ms. Toad]

28. The one she filled was a bit odd.

It was a habeas petition, on the basis she was being held unlawfully. In guessing that was because it was faster, and because those holding her were government officials (who have some immunity)

[Karasu]

13. Not NEARLY enough has been said about this, and to my knowledge, the regime has never attempted to

explain why the fuck they're doing it this way rather than the actual "deportation" their base (supposedly) wants.

Republicans love to boast that they're sending "illegals" back to "where they came from"...but by and large, that's not what they're doing. At all.

Someone needs to hold their feet to the fire and make them explain why the fuck they're not doing that and are instead sending them to the hellish places that they are.

Yes, I know most of us know the answer. But the country at large doesn't, and it needs to.

[nolabear]

15. Oh it absolutely is. They don't care, at best.

At worst, they get off on it. I swear I’m believing it more and more all the time.

[UTUSN]

16. K&R

[Blue Full Moon]

25. Human trafficking

[spanone]

27. Cruel and Unusual is exactly what they want.