Under the condition that they individually refused to return to their home country or their home country's government refused to approve the flight, yes.
Refusal to go home does not mean you get to stay.
41
PlatformVarious89411 day ago
+15
Doesn’t mean you can get sent to a very unstable country either.
15
fennelliott1 day ago
+2
Well, it is technically a "democratic republic," but I don't think the administration read beyond that before hitting send.
2
PlatformVarious89411 day ago
+6
You mean like the DPRK?
6
fennelliott1 day ago
+1
No the DRC
1
PlatformVarious89411 day ago
+6
I know, I’m just trying to find other « democratic republics » for this administration.
I’m half surprised they aren’t sending folks over to MAGAdascar.
6
annaleigh131 day ago
+2
A law is only a law if it’s enforced. The courts tried but failed, and Congress has given their power to trump
2
h-land2 days ago
I don't think that's going to stop them.
0
Muted_Bee71111 day ago
+1
Is ANYTHING the POS in the WH doing legal?
1
ronweasleisourking2 days ago
+20
I don't understand this. They're not Congolese so why the f*** are they sending them there
20
Tsquare432 days ago
+27
They can't go back to their home nations, as they are persecuted and there are judge's orders that prevent them to send them home. So, send them somewhere else, where it becomes someone else's problem, while at the same time "obeying" a judge's order. Cruelty is the point with this administration.
27
Wallsworth12301 day ago
+17
More realistically, the point is to set the example that refusing to go home does not make you master of your own fate.
Maybe we should develop a system where people like this can try to negotiate with some other country to let them move there. Like if Brazil or Khazakstan or whatever says "yeah we'll take em" then they can go there.
But refusal to go home does not mean you get to stay here. Either agree to go home or negotiate with a third country to let you move there, otherwise you forfeit the right to choose your destination.
17
Tsquare431 day ago
-1
They're refusing because they were under a judge's protective order as there were reasons that they couldn't go to their home country. They came for asylum. Perhaps a death sentence from a cartel, or they're gay and persecuted, or a persecuted religious minority.
So, this version of ICE decides to "honor" that and then send them to a third party.
-1
Wallsworth12301 day ago
Article seems to be paywalled, so I can't get much info.
But did these people actually *apply* for asylum? Or did they simply illegally enter the country and then start claiming persecution after being arrested?
Assuming they have actually made an asylum application, has it been reviewed and approved?
If not, then they don't have the right to stay. I could see an argument for letting them negotiate with a third country to take them, but in the absence of that they have to go somewhere.
0
sdn1 day ago
+11
There has been a judicial order saying they can’t be deported to their country of origin.
This means that a case has gone through the court system and a determination has been made that it would be unsafe for them to return.
11
Wallsworth12301 day ago
-6
Right, because they claimed they would be in danger there. I suspect they didn't initiate their asylum applications until after they were already arrested.
Either way, that's not an excuse for entering the country illegally and it doesn't mean they get to stay here. They don't have to go home specifically, but they have to go.
-6
sdn1 day ago
+12
You have no idea under what conditions they claimed asylum.
You can enter the country legally and claim asylum after entry.
You’re just full of shit.
12
Wallsworth12301 day ago
-2
You're right. Like I said, the article is paywalled which causes me to have limited info available.
But if they're being deported then presumably either they entered illegally or their asylum application was denied.
Either way, like I said before, they don't have to go home but they do have to go.
-2
HillBillyHilly1 day ago
+3
Copy link address. Go to archive.ph or archive.is. Paste and go. Article opens.
3
sambare2 days ago
+3
Hey, don't sell them so short like that. They've also made incredible wealth this past year.
3
Tsquare432 days ago
+1
Can't forget the grift!
1
ksck1352 days ago
+13
They have legal protection from US judges shielding them against being returned to their home country. So they were detained, spent months in detention where US tried to persuade them to return to their home countries and when they still refused, they sent them to one of the African countries US has arrangements with to send their undesirable immigrants.
13
[deleted]2 days ago
-45
[removed]
-45
intricate_strands2 days ago
+12
Relax. The person explaining the how doesn't mean they support it or are happy about it.
In fact, that they know f****** anything about it is typically a sign that they are *against* it in American culture.
12
Dry_Invite_62451 day ago
+1
they make deals with their countries, in my country ( costa rica ) our president made a deal with Trump to take migrants from other countries of latam.
1
HillBillyHilly1 day ago
+2
Those poor people. Imagine being sent to the Congo instead of Costa Rica. What a nightmare for those poor people.
2
morbie51 day ago
-3
> so why the f*** are they sending them there
Cuz we don't want them here
-3
HillBillyHilly1 day ago
+7
I don't want Frump Fetterman or most of Republicans here. Can they be sent to Congo too?
7
morbie51 day ago
-3
Get enough representatives, senators, and a president elected that agree with you then sure.
You might need to change the constitution tho
-3
nsfwuseraccnt1 day ago
+11
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
11
BigMammoth72912 days ago
-20
click bait
-20
cydril2 days ago
+5
The literal truth is click bait?
5
AmbitiousButRubbishh13 hr ago
+1
A whopping 15 people, huh
What a colossal waste of taxpayer money being funneled to somebody’s already loaded pockets
34 Comments