Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Inisfad's avatar

I also understand that the the countries that the US is currently deporting these illegal aliens to, have entered into an agreement with the US and are receiving a financial benefit for that ‘privilege’. I would suspect that this benefit to the accepting country, and the wish for it to continue, would ensure that treatment would align with US objectives.

Expand full comment
Bob's avatar

This is exactly the kind of legal clarity the public rarely gets when immigration, due process, and international obligations collide. Too often, the conversation is driven by emotion and abstraction—“we can’t send someone there”—with no attention to actual legal standards or statutory burden of proof.

The CAT process exists, and it's not a rubber stamp. What you’ve laid out underscores something essential: assertions aren’t evidence, and humanitarian policy still operates within legal constraints. The Court didn’t need to explain its decision because, under existing law and precedent, the logic holds.

Appreciate this level-headed analysis. It cuts through the noise.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts