Deportations and the Holocaust

[superrific]

1. One of the mysteries about the Trump administration's attempts to evade judicial review with dishonest stunts is: why blow all the political and legal capital on something that ultimately doesn't matter. They deported 137 people to El Salvador despite a judge's order and now there are contempt proceedings. Knowing that would happen, they tried to eviscerate the Supreme Court's order in Texas by giving 12 hours notice before deportation and calling it reasonable. They invited contempt proceedings by violating the judge's order and deporting twelve people to South Sudan. WHY?

Can animus alone really explain this? After all, there are three possible outcomes: first, the government could win on the merits and be allowed to deport legally; second, the government could lose on the merits and be prevented from deporting; or third, the administration could trick the courts into believing they were complying when they were not. The first two options are the real contest: if the government wins, it will be able to deport hundreds of thousands of people; if it loses, it will be unable to do so. The third possibility is impossible to maintain over any significant length of time. At best, you can pull the wool over the judges' eyes for a week maybe. During that time, how many people can be deported? 1K? 2K? 3K? Certainly a lot less than the 3 million they want to deport or whatever the current target is.

So to deport a tiny, tiny fraction of the purported bad guys, they are jeopardizing their ability to win on the merits because the judges are extremely disinclined to rule in the government's favor. They are not giving the administration any presumption of good faith or regularity, because the administration has amply forfeited that presumption. The government's proposed facts are essentially being rubbished because they are lies.

Moreover, the lawyers themselves are putting themselves at risk of sanctions or possible discipline. Some of the smart ones have resigned (and probably have job opportunities as a result); but some have stayed and are making a career of lying to judges' faces. This does not bode well, in my view, for their future success in the profession. Now maybe they are anti-immigrant fanatics, but again -- why risk all that for an insignificant number of deportations. I mean, nobody actually believes the US is safer because Kilmar Garcia is in El Salvador and Christian in Mexico.

2. It reminds me of one of the mysteries of the Holocaust -- specifically, why did the Holocaust proceed during a two-front war. I know scholars have grappled with this question extensively, and plenty of theories have been put forward. Without casting doubt on any of that work (and I'm familiar with only a small fraction of it, and I don't know enough to meaningfully assess), I think we can all agree that the expenditure of military assets on the killing of domestically housed civilians seems inadvisable when the military is getting its ass kicked on two fronts at once.

Indeed, the US and the UK bombed plenty of German railroad lines, but (in)famously not the ones leading to the death camps. Putting aside the moral question of the responsibility of the Allies toward the Jewish population, from a military perspective isn't the message clear? Please, Hitler, keep spending resources on things that hurt your ability to fight us. It was analogous to leaving Jackie Manuel wide open in the corner. Jackie, they want you to shoot! Don't.

3. I don't think I have to spell out the connection I'm drawing in any more express detail. Everyone here can get the point. My question continues to be: why. This isn't to say that I think the deportations are remotely as bad as the Holocaust (at least not yet), but the weird motivation seems common: self-destruction in the service of insignificant victories. Hitler was not going to get Lebensraum by killing Jews. That could be obtained only by winning the war. Same with exterminating Jews, as he apparently wanted to do. Winning the war was the only way to accomplish the goals and he made it harder on himself. I have no idea if Germany could have won the war without wasting assets that way (I suspect the diminishment of German military capacity was only marginally affected) but it surely did not help at all.

So I started with a question and now end on one. Any thoughts?

 

[4thgenheel]

correct me if i'm wrong here super, but tldr: the nazi's pursuit of the holocaust in the short term put a serious strain on their ability to pursue their long-term end goal of lebensraum / european domination?

are we trying to figure out what the maga version of lebensraum / euro domination is? probably a relatively similar, modernized version just in north america. white christian nationalist domination. socially and economically.

 

[superrific]

correct me if i'm wrong here super, but tldr: the nazi's pursuit of the holocaust in the short term put a serious strain on their ability to pursue their long-term end goal of lebensraum / european domination?

are we trying to figure out what the maga version of lebensraum / euro domination is? probably a relatively similar, modernized version just in north america. white christian nationalist domination. socially and economically.

1. I'm not drawing the connection so literally. It's more a question about dying on a hill. If the Nazis won the war, they could have killed as many jews as they wanted; if they lost, they'd be dead. So it makes no sense to kill jews in the short-term if it diverts resources away from the war effort. In the case of the Nazis, it's likely that some of the decision-makers were so virulently anti-Semitic, so psychopathic that killing Jews was seen as an end in itself and if Germany lost the war but killed 5 million Jews it would be worth it. I mean, there are a lot of theories, in part because there were a lot of decision makers.

So with the deportations, same consideration: why would you die on the hill right now. If you win at the Supreme Court, you can deport to your heart's content. If you lose, you can't deport anyone and you'll probably lose the next election. So why would you alienate the courts with shenanigans that maybe win you 100 deportations, maybe a thousand, which is still much less than 1% of the goal.

2. I have no idea whether the death camps put a "serious" strain on the Nazis war capability. I'm not a military historian. I have read, and it's common sense, that it weakened the war effort at least a little. I mean, it had to, right? If for no other reason than death camps being far less productive than concentration camps. Or the fact that the Germans were losing enough trains to have a scarcity, but still run the trains to Auschwitz.

But regardless, whether it reduced their war capacity by 20% or 1%, why would you devote less than 100% of your resources toward the existential battle? To analogize, suppose you are hanging above a 1000 foot chasm by holding monkey bars. Assuming this isn't a movie, nobody in their right mind would just let go with one hand unless it was necessary (i.e literally cannot keep arms up anymore). Duh. But would anyone peel away one finger -- let's say, deciding to point your pinkie toward the sky. I don't know if that would actually severely weaken your grip, but I sure as hell wouldn't try to find out.

 

[4thgenheel]

So with the deportations, same consideration: why would you die on the hill right now. If you win at the Supreme Court, you can deport to your heart's content. If you lose, you can't deport anyone and you'll probably lose the next election. So why would you alienate the courts with shenanigans that maybe win you 100 deportations, maybe a thousand, which is still much less than 1% of the goal.

understood. it seems like this part is the crux of your question.

it's a good question.

 

[Ramrouser]

The Administration wanted to get those 137 people (some who were pretty terrible gang bangers) to the El Salvadorian prison early in the term to set the tone of their deportation strategy to encourage illegals to self deport and discourage new arrivals. Cecot is certainly an infamous prison where no one wants to be sent. So, it was worth it to them to incur the wrath of the federal judge to achieve this "shock and awe" goal.

Having achieved their goal, the Administration would have been smart to quietly return them to the US for immediate re deportation - thereby complying with the judge's order. The Administration is clearly being "too cute by half" in their continuing to insist the US cannot facilitate the return of these illegals. This is likely not only pissing off the district judge but potentially earning the wrath of the entire federal judiciary - which will cost them in future cases.

Sometimes the "bull in the China shop" approach can work; sometimes you just end up breaking lots of dishes.

 

[Bobfripp]

The Administration wanted to get those 137 people (some who were pretty terrible gang bangers) to the El Salvadorian prison early in the term to set the tone of their deportation strategy to encourage illegals to self deport and discourage new arrivals. Cecot is certainly an infamous prison where no one wants to be sent. So, it was worth it to them to incur the wrath of the federal judge to achieve this "shock and awe" goal.

Having achieved their goal, the Administration would have been smart to quietly return them to the US for immediate re deportation - thereby complying with the judge's order. The Administration is clearly being "too cute by half" in their continuing to insist the US cannot facilitate the return of these illegals. This is likely not only pissing off the district judge but potentially earning the wrath of the entire federal judiciary - which will cost them in future cases.

Sometimes the "bull in the China shop" approach can work; sometimes you just end up breaking lots of dishes.

Fear ... it's a helluva drug.

 

[4thgenheel]

The Administration wanted to get those 137 people (some who were pretty terrible gang bangers) to the El Salvadorian prison early in the term to set the tone of their deportation strategy to encourage illegals to self deport and discourage new arrivals. Cecot is certainly an infamous prison where no one wants to be sent. So, it was worth it to them to incur the wrath of the federal judge to achieve this "shock and awe" goal.

Having achieved their goal, the Administration would have been smart to quietly return them to the US for immediate re deportation - thereby complying with the judge's order. The Administration is clearly being "too cute by half" in their continuing to insist the US cannot facilitate the return of these illegals. This is likely not only pissing off the district judge but potentially earning the wrath of the entire federal judiciary - which will cost them in future cases.

Sometimes the "bull in the China shop" approach can work; sometimes you just end up breaking lots of dishes.

except the vast majority of them were not "pretty terrible gang bangers."

Politics Post in thread '—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | SCOTUS vs POTUS'

Friday at 7:29 AM

• nycfan

• 
• 

 

[Bigs23]

Arrogance, stupidity, hatefulness.

Parts of those.

 

[Zoo_View]

Didn’t the El Salvadorian dictator want several (9 comes to mind) gang leaders deported to El Salvador immediately because that dictator didn’t want the gang leaders testifying in American courts?

 

[Healing]

Didn’t the El Salvadorian dictator want several (9 comes to mind) gang leaders deported to El Salvador immediately because that dictator didn’t want the gang leaders testifying in American courts?

Yes.

“Bukele rose to near-total control of El Salvador on a tide of support from the very gang he’s credited with defeating, according to a U.S. federal indictment, the Treasury Department, regional experts, and Salvadoran media.

In March, Trump’s Justice Department dropped terrorism charges against Cesar Humberto Lopez-Larios, an alleged top MS-13 leader, and returned him to El Salvador before he could potentially reveal Bukele’s deals in an American courtroom.

Leaders of MS-13 negotiated with Bukele ahead of his 2019 presidential landslide and gave him a sometimes violent get-out-the-vote effort in 2021 legislative elections, the U.S. Justice Department has alleged.

The 2021 victory gave Bukele’s Nuevas Ideas party a legislative supermajority that allowed the term-limited president to cull the country’s supreme court, oust the attorney general, and blow through El Salvador’s constitution to run for and win a second term.

In return, MS-13 leaders received prison privileges, financial benefits − and a ban on extraditions to the United States, U.S. prosecutors, Salvadoran media and people familiar with the negotiations told USA TODAY.

An examination of Bukele’s past shows how a gifted young politician, who once described himself as “a radical leftist,” rose to power with the help of a Communist guerilla commander, Venezuelan oil money – and a winning deal with MS-13’s bloodstained leadership.”

The shadowy rise of Donald Trump's favorite president: Nayib Bukele

Nayib Bukele rose to near-total control of El Salvador on a tide of support from the very gang he’s credited with defeating.

www.usatoday.com

 

[sringwal]

The Administration wanted to get those 137 people (some who were pretty terrible gang bangers) to the El Salvadorian prison early in the term to set the tone of their deportation strategy to encourage illegals to self deport and discourage new arrivals. Cecot is certainly an infamous prison where no one wants to be sent. So, it was worth it to them to incur the wrath of the federal judge to achieve this "shock and awe" goal.

Having achieved their goal, the Administration would have been smart to quietly return them to the US for immediate re deportation - thereby complying with the judge's order. The Administration is clearly being "too cute by half" in their continuing to insist the US cannot facilitate the return of these illegals. This is likely not only pissing off the district judge but potentially earning the wrath of the entire federal judiciary - which will cost them in future cases.

Sometimes the "bull in the China shop" approach can work; sometimes you just end up breaking lots of dishes.

I agree with a lot of this.

 

[Centerpiece]

1. One of the mysteries about the Trump administration's attempts to evade judicial review with dishonest stunts is: why blow all the political and legal capital on something that ultimately doesn't matter. They deported 137 people to El Salvador despite a judge's order and now there are contempt proceedings. Knowing that would happen, they tried to eviscerate the Supreme Court's order in Texas by giving 12 hours notice before deportation and calling it reasonable. They invited contempt proceedings by violating the judge's order and deporting twelve people to South Sudan. WHY?

Can animus alone really explain this? After all, there are three possible outcomes: first, the government could win on the merits and be allowed to deport legally; second, the government could lose on the merits and be prevented from deporting; or third, the administration could trick the courts into believing they were complying when they were not. The first two options are the real contest: if the government wins, it will be able to deport hundreds of thousands of people; if it loses, it will be unable to do so. The third possibility is impossible to maintain over any significant length of time. At best, you can pull the wool over the judges' eyes for a week maybe. During that time, how many people can be deported? 1K? 2K? 3K? Certainly a lot less than the 3 million they want to deport or whatever the current target is.

So to deport a tiny, tiny fraction of the purported bad guys, they are jeopardizing their ability to win on the merits because the judges are extremely disinclined to rule in the government's favor. They are not giving the administration any presumption of good faith or regularity, because the administration has amply forfeited that presumption. The government's proposed facts are essentially being rubbished because they are lies.

Moreover, the lawyers themselves are putting themselves at risk of sanctions or possible discipline. Some of the smart ones have resigned (and probably have job opportunities as a result); but some have stayed and are making a career of lying to judges' faces. This does not bode well, in my view, for their future success in the profession. Now maybe they are anti-immigrant fanatics, but again -- why risk all that for an insignificant number of deportations. I mean, nobody actually believes the US is safer because Kilmar Garcia is in El Salvador and Christian in Mexico.

2. It reminds me of one of the mysteries of the Holocaust -- specifically, why did the Holocaust proceed during a two-front war. I know scholars have grappled with this question extensively, and plenty of theories have been put forward. Without casting doubt on any of that work (and I'm familiar with only a small fraction of it, and I don't know enough to meaningfully assess), I think we can all agree that the expenditure of military assets on the killing of domestically housed civilians seems inadvisable when the military is getting its ass kicked on two fronts at once.

Indeed, the US and the UK bombed plenty of German railroad lines, but (in)famously not the ones leading to the death camps. Putting aside the moral question of the responsibility of the Allies toward the Jewish population, from a military perspective isn't the message clear? Please, Hitler, keep spending resources on things that hurt your ability to fight us. It was analogous to leaving Jackie Manuel wide open in the corner. Jackie, they want you to shoot! Don't.

3. I don't think I have to spell out the connection I'm drawing in any more express detail. Everyone here can get the point. My question continues to be: why. This isn't to say that I think the deportations are remotely as bad as the Holocaust (at least not yet), but the weird motivation seems common: self-destruction in the service of insignificant victories. Hitler was not going to get Lebensraum by killing Jews. That could be obtained only by winning the war. Same with exterminating Jews, as he apparently wanted to do. Winning the war was the only way to accomplish the goals and he made it harder on himself. I have no idea if Germany could have won the war without wasting assets that way (I suspect the diminishment of German military capacity was only marginally affected) but it surely did not help at all.

So I started with a question and now end on one. Any thoughts?

Hitler was sick in the head. As is Trump. Hitler knew he was toast and wanted to burn everything down before he, himself, went down. Scorched Earth. Leave nothing behind - and oh - BTW - go ahead and burn everyone else that you'd like to see destroyed as well.

2) It's like the turtle crossing the road analogy I posited on another thread. Hitler/Trump are/were heartless bastards who didn't/don't give 2 shits about anyone or anything else other than themselves.