politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She is not stateless. She is an American citizen. Wrongly deported, yes. Stateless, no.
Hey now. How can media outlets manufacture consent if they don’t misrepresent her status?
She can come back across the border with her US Passport.
Getting that passport would be impossible tho. Ipso facto, she's stateless.
Stateless in the sense of being exiled from her country
That's not what "stateless" means.
OK. So what’s the word for “unable to return to your country of citizenship due to circumstances beyond your control and also unable to stay in the country you’re presently in due to only having a tourist visa”?
This is de facto statelessness
She's still a de jure US citizen
That is, if a democratic (hopefully a progressive) president who respects the rule of law take power, they can come back.
If this were de jure revocation of citizenship, then even a democractic president can't bring you back
Had her statehood wrongly, cruelly, illegally, willfully, and thoroughly ripped from her without due process.
But stateless... no.
Are you under the impression that statelessness would ever be something that was done rightfully, kindly, legally, etc?
This is what statelessness looks like. It is wrong, cruel, and illegal.
"Statelessness" is a state of being.
It is something that can be chosen. When chosen, yep, it's "rightfully, kindly, legally, etc." and that term applies.
When done to you, it is "wrong, cruel, and illegal" and some other term is more applicable. "Statelessness" is much too passive. 🤷♂️
Statelessness is also something that is inflicted on people. The UN talks about this stuff all the time.
How would you even choose it? I guess you could renounce all citizenship and then go live in a seastead or a colony on Mars, but it's usually something that is done to people.
She’s been made stateless, which is by definition illegal. There’s international law against doing exactly this (not that the US cares right now).
I mean she’s kind of de-facto stateless at least until she is old enough or finds some other caregiver in the US. If she’s only a citizen of the US but can’t survive there then is there any difference between that and being stateless?
https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/about-statelessness/
Yes, the experience she has right now, being a US citizen in Brazil, means that her current experience is surely quite similar to what it would be if she were stateless. And the path forward is definitely full of obstacles.
But she is not stateless. She is a US citizen with a US passport. Her situation is caused by her government illegally sending her to another country.
Right, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, just pointing out it’s a bit of an academic distinction at this point.
But probably not the right way for the media to describe it, so I see your point.