> We now have concentration camps, abrogation of the constitution, judicial capture, and the military turned increasingly against American citizens.

Other countries got those without paying Palantir billions.

This is part of the fundamental contradiction of libertarianism. Why would those with the power and the purse strings curtail the government (including spending) when it doesn’t suit them? Instead it’s things like environmental regulations and social programs that get cut, tipping society’s imbalances further.

I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but he is not even a libertarian ideologically. Somebody who is a boss (owner or manager) in a private company can't be considered to put freedom of his subordinates above all else; it's an authoritarian arrangement. If he was truly a libertarian, he would be either a lone contractor or consider his coworkers to be his peers (e.g. would start a cooperative instead of private company, or he would find a similar position as Linus Torvalds).

> We now have concentration camps

Immigration detention facilities are not concentration camps.

You can put whatever paint you want on a turd and it is miraculously still the same thing.

Exactly, you can paint "it's a concentration camp" on the immigration detention facility and it is miraculously still the same thing. Glad you agree, it's not a concentration camp.

This account (anonfordays) has never participated in good faith. Why is it still not banned?

I've been seeing this (calls for bans of accounts who aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals) more frequently here recently.

Why?

>> never participated in good faith

> aren't in lockstep with liberal/progressive ideals

These aren't the same thing

I know, that's my point.

Increasingly (from my limited view), people with a progressive viewpoint seem to be making this claim ("account X never participated in good faith and therefore should be banned") without any real grounds for doing so.

>Why?

No wrongthink allowed! Protect the narrative!

They’re not death camps. But mass detention without due process - that’s a concentration camp.

That definition would make most refugee camps concentration camps.

People aren’t legally detained in refugee camps though. They are fleeing worse conditions.

OK, but if I am part of a large flow of people fleeing country X for country Y, more often than not, I cannot move around country Y as I please: I am restricted to a refugee camp. Also more often than not, I am not entitled to a hearing in front of a magistrate to dispute that restriction.

Most refugees don’t live in camps. Some camps don’t restrict movement, and those that do restrict it to widely varying degrees. Some do have features of concentration camps. Typically, even in closed camps, there’s no claim that refugees have violated the law as justification for detentions. Refugees are typically fleeing to escape dangerous situations.

As of the end of 2021 there were around 6.7 million registered refugees from Syria globally. This figure is reported by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in their Global Trends report for 2021. These refugees were primarily hosted in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan -- and most of those are restricted to refugee camps -- and the ones who enjoy the freedom to move around the country probably achieved that through bribery, which of course is not the same thing as having due-process rights.

Refugees admitted into Europe are not restricted to camps and do have some due-process rights, but they have at most times been a distinct minority of the refugees in the world.

According to UNHCR, 22% of the world’s refugees are in refugee camps. Camps vary in their quality. And some are more or less closed than others.

Some refugees do live in inhuman conditions. Even if these conditions affected a majority of refugees, that doesn’t justify treating human beings this way.

All people have a right to due process. It’s a human right. Whether this or that government honors this right is a separate question.

We should be trying to emulate governments that honor human rights, not take our example from those that don’t.

I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are? Can you (without cheating)? You've heard the term before (in school most likely), and if you were in the 10% of the students who weren't borderline flunking, you might even be able to name which amendment enumerates due process rights, but in my experience that's about the most any non-lawyer can even manage.

I have a fuzzy notion of what they encompass, admittedly, but nothing about the detention centers or the deportations stands out as a violation of those rights.

>I've asked this before, but how many Americans could even state a simple definition of what due process rights are?

It's because most people don't have a good grasp of how diverse and often flimsy administrative and civil process (in cases where one party is the .gov is in reality. Typically the answer is "whatever the enforcing agencies come up with", which isn't very reassuring.

Like for a traffic ticket they at least haul you before a judge in a public court anyone can attend to give some pretext of the accused having serious rights that protect them. It makes sense. Traffic tickets are a "mass market" product so to speak and so the .gov has to put on a good show even if at the end of the day someone facing a $200 civil traffic fine doesn't actually have the same rights as the guy facing a $200 criminal public urination fine.

When it comes to stuff like code enforcement, arcane industry enforcement, fish and game, ICE and everything else federal the process is far less "due", so to speak and is far more likely to not have separation of powers on the government side (i.e. administrative ppl in the enforcement agencies will be making decisions that would be made by a judge in other contexts)

I don't know what "due process" consists of for immigration violations but I would bet my last dollar that it is an absolute joke compared to the high end of civil (traffic ticket and the like), which itself is a joke compared to criminal matters.

I would really like to see all this shit thrown out by the supreme court. If the .gov, be it fed, state or local, is going to punish people the same way they punish criminals bet it a fine or jail then they ought to meet the same bar. Allowing people to be jailed (in the case of ICE) or fined large sums (in the case of many other types of administrative matters) because it's not nominally a criminal matter is 100% an end run around the constitution.

>I don't know what "due process" consists of for immigration violations but I would bet my last dollar that it is an absolute joke compared to the high end of civil

Then let's explore that. There are some rights which aren't fundamental human rights... that is, you don't get them just by virtue of existing. Voting comes to mind, that's a citizen's right only.

The right to be present within the borders of the United States is another such right. If you aren't a citizen, you do not have this right. We might extend the temporary privilege to non-citizens, but it is absolutely at the prerogative of the United States... subject to revocation at any time. The idea that it can't just be subject to revocation (arbitrary or otherwise) is the dimwitted notion that there is a sort of second-class citizenship... that some not-really-citizens can be here permanently and we can't decide that we want them to return home.

So, if they can be deported (for reason, or none at all), the only recourse such people have is "I can prove I'm a citizen". If ICE isn't letting them do so, if they protest that they are a citizen and the ICE agent sticks his fingers in his ears and chants "I can't hear you" repeatedly, then that would be a violation of due process. The process which is due (among whatever other redundant triplechecks they should be doing) is to hear all such protests in good faith and evaluate whatever evidence such a person provides. I haven't heard of any refusing to do such a thing (but if they have, it should be grounds for termination).

I reject the idea that it is necessary or desirable to drag each of these foreigners before a judge to perform this function.

> is going to punish people the same way they punish criminals

I don't want these people punished at all. Punishment would be putting them in prison (where they would stay in the United States). If someone is trespassing on your property and you call the police, the police would punish them by prosecuting, convicting, and incarcerating. When they drag them from your property and tell them to get lost, that's not punishment. It's just removal from where they aren't permitted to be. It's still not punishment even if they cry that they don't want to go home.

> The process which is due (among whatever other redundant triplechecks they should be doing) is to hear all such protests in good faith and evaluate whatever evidence such a person provides. I haven't heard of any refusing to do such a thing (but if they have, it should be grounds for termination).

A DOJ lawyer literally said they haven't been doing this sufficiently and then he got sacked by Pam Bondi. SCOTUS then reaffirmed 9 to 0 that the original lawyer who admitted this failure in court was actually correct, that DOJ wasn't giving people their due process rights.

I find it extremely hard to believe you have not heard about the Kilmar Abrego case?

>I find it extremely hard to believe you have not heard about the Kilmar Abrego case?

Yes. And to the best of my knowledge he is not a citizen.

Which does not preclude him from having due process rights, as SCOTUS ruled 9-0 (and has been reaffirmed unequivocally by about 180 years of case law).

His due process rights were "if he protests that he is a citizen, then they must make effort to determine if that is the case with haste, and release him if it checks out".

He did not assert citizenship, they did not violate due process rights. No other process is due him. Anyone claiming that it's a violation of due process rights doesn't know what they mean, though for a moment I had hope for you... you sort of described them, or at least hinted at them, but you're unable to apply what you described to this situation. Due process rights can't and won't keep non-citizens in this country if they are trying to avoid deportation, and shouldn't ever. Non-citizens only have the revocable-for-any-reason-or-none privilege of visiting, and that only if they get the visa.

Why do you think SCOTUS disagreed with you 9-0?

What do you know that they don’t?

They literally agreed with what he just stated. Don't comment with "gotchas" that you don't understand.

>But mass detention without due process

Glad that's not happening. Thanks for confirming they're not concentration camps.

At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT, people are held without charges, denied timely access to legal counsel, and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention. At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights.

The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so. The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials. Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.

>At Alligator Alcatraz and CECOT

CECOT is not in the US.

>people are held without charges

You do not have to be criminally charged to be deported under civil immigration statues. The years of leftists smugly proclaiming "it's a civil violation, not a crime" ended up being a self own.

>denied timely access to legal counsel

Again, civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel.

>and prevented from having a fair hearing to challenge their detention

They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge. The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country.

>At CECOT, transfers from the US occur without notice to attorneys or families, in a foreign justice system that has suspended many basic rights.

Not in the US. Deportations to CECOT follow the same practices and statutes as deportations to other countries.

>The conditions at these facilities are inhumane and deliberately so.

I'll give you this, detention/prisons/etc. centers in the US are universally bad.

>The purpose is to punish people, not detain people awaiting fair trials.

It's not punishment, it a temporary holding before deportation.

> Besides the other issues, being punished without trial is a clear violation of constitutional rights.

Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to stay in the US.

CECOT is part of US mass deportation operations. Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country. In fact the US plans to expand the number of domestic and foreign concentration camps.

> civil proceedings in the US do not ensure a right to legal counsel.

You’re appealing to the law. But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it. It is a human right not a legal right. The history of concentration camps is full of legal supports placed there by authoritarian governments. But legal justifications don’t exonerate governments mass incarcerating people without due process.

> They're being temporarily detained for deportation, there's nothing to challenge.

Sure there is. Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging.

> The average detention time is short before they're deported to their home country.

Average detention times are around 50 days. Some people crossing at borders for example can be turned back fairly quickly. Others are held indefinitely.

> It’s not punishment

Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence.

>Sending someone to a concentration camp doesn’t become justified when the destination is a foreign country.

If illegal immigrants were to voluntarily deport before becoming detained, could they avoid incarceration at CECOT? If the answer is "yes", then it seems their own actions/decisions cause this. Why then should I have sympathy for them?

>But due process is violated even if there is a legal framework to justify it.

What is the exact nature of their due process rights in that situation?

What process is due, exactly, someone who is detained because they have no right to be in this country?

>Whether a person should be deported or not is absolutely worth challenging

The only people who have a say in the matter on whether or not a non-citizen should be allowed to stay or forcibly deported is a citizen. If you'd like to make the case that they should be allowed to stay (as a citizen), then I am willing to hear your argument.

I'm not willing to hear theirs, and as much as I can influence my government, I will demand that it be unwilling to hear their (non-citizens') arguments as well. In court, or otherwise.

>Besides the inhuman conditions that exceed most US prisons, multiple officials have stated that the intent behind Alligator Alcatraz is deterrence.

If you remove a trespasser from your property, it is not punishment... it is remedy. If the remedy (for some reason) deters future trespassing, that still doesn't make it punishment.

People who aren’t trespassers or violating any law are punished and deported without a chance to make their case. You’re assuming that all people ICE sends to concentration camps deserve to be there? But these determinations have been made without fair hearings where people have a chance to formulate a defense. Due process is not afforded these people. Treating people this way is unjust.

>People who aren’t trespassers

They very much are trespassers. They're not citizens, therefor they have no legal right to be here. We issue visas, but we reserve the right to revoke those without notice or for that matter right to appeal. We're removing them from property that is not theirs.

Punishment would be additional to that, but perversely would require that they remain here for the punishment, so people like myself have no interest in it. It's enough that they leave.

>You’re assuming that all people ICE sends to concentration camps deserve to be there?

I don't know what you think the word "deserve" means that it is relevant. It does not matter where they deserve to be, they can't be here. It's our property, they're not welcome.

>But these determinations have been made without fair hearings

There need be no hearings at all. They are not citizens, they have no right to be here. None. You seem to think that some legal right is being revoked, which would necessitate courts... but they have no such legal right. No need for hearings.

>Due process is not afforded these people.

The only process due an illegal immigrant is checking to make sure they're not a citizen. If that process has been followed, no more process is due them. They are not criminals, they get no trial.

> Treating people this way is unjust.

Possibly. But I do not care, not even a little. It is our obligation to make a place for foreigners to live here. This isn't their country.

The issue with suspending due process is you can’t tell if any of these accusations are true. Is this or that victim of ICE really a “trespasser”? Without due process you can’t know that. All you have are accusations and punishment.

A place of mass detention without due process: that’s the definition of a concentration camp.

>The issue with suspending due process is you can’t tell if any of these accusations are true.

None of the detainees are claiming citizenship. Due process is only violated if they claim citizenship and ICE ignores them. One might think that even someone ignorant of the law might start babbling "you can't do this, I'm a citizen" or similar.

They know the score. They know they're not. Now if only the left would clue in too.

>and punishment.

What punishment? Not all legal remedies are punishment. No criminal charges are levied. No one intends to incarcerate them (hell, that would mean they get to stay). They're just being deported.

> Due process is only violated if they claim citizenship and ICE ignores them.

Due process is a human right not a right of citizens.

> What punishment?

The conditions of these concentration camps are inhumane, which itself is punishment. Besides, as stated by public officials, Alligator Alcatraz is intended as a deterrent. How can it deter if it doesn’t punish?

And being deported if you don’t deserve it is punishment. And being deported to foreign concentration camps whether your case merits deportation or not is punishment as well.

And individuals can indeed claim citizenship and get no hearing for their claim. Claims don’t get hearings. That’s because there is no due process. In fact, many people are kidnapped without any formal accusation whatsoever being levied at them - for example Mahmoud Khalil, who had a green card and was retaliated against for protesting genocide, without ever being formally accused of anything.

> No one intends to incarcerate them

Detention at a concentration camp constitutes incarceration. On average ICE detains people around 50 days domestically (although those are dated numbers). Some are detained indefinitely. At CECOT, prisoners are incarcerated for life. And the US plans to increase the numbers of foreign concentration camps it uses as part of its operations, which don’t even have to be the person’s country of origin.

The capital-L Libertarian party is a bastardization of the libertarian conception of freedom based on the longstanding American delusion of "temporarily embarassed millionaires", similar to the philosophy-laundering that goes on in the two major parties. So called "right-libertarianism" as a complete overarching philosophy is a logical contradiction. For example, in the "right libertarian" framework, North Korea is isomorphic to a bastion of freedom - Kim Jong Un simply owns everything, and everyone there has contracted with him with some pretty oneous terms, including making all of their children party to this contract as well. The right-"Libertarians" reading this are now reflexively looking for logical escape hatches - restrictions on the freedom to contract, age of legal personhood, etc - but only because this example is so galling it's setting off the atrophied "leftist" inductive half of their mind.

Libertarianism must necessarily be concerned with qualitative outcomes of individual liberty rather than axiomatic foundations that assert the existence of freedom by construction (commonly resulting in Newspeak). Analyzing all existing power structures, not falling into the trap of building new ones with differently-named abstractions. The "rightist" deductive logical implication following is of course necessary (one can't get very far without it!), but it is incapable of achieving liberty by itself. Trying to do so inevitably fails spectacularly, which is why there are sibling comments in this thread abusing the concepts of liberty to argue in support of naked authoritarianism.