this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)

politics

23457 readers
2616 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Burke was not given over directly to the custody of ICE, which held ultimate determination over her fate, but to the GEO Group, a for-profit private prison contractor [my emphasis] operating 50 facilities across the United States, including the Northwest ICE Processing Center where she was sent.1 In her more than two weeks in that facility, Burke was kept in a single, large dormitory alongside 103 other detained women, given limited access to food, hygiene, and clean clothes, and unaware throughout the period when or whether she would be allowed to return home. She had been allowed early on to contact her parents (with whom she remained sporadically in touch during her detainment), and they in turn were able to reach British authorities. But while diplomatic efforts bore little fruit, Burke’s case did, in the meantime, make its way into news both in the U.K. and (to a more limited extent) in the U.S., having drawn the attention of the BBC, the Guardian, Newsweek, and, within the field of comics, Rich Johnston at Bleedingcool.com.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Not at all surprising, I've heard nothing good about them since first hearing the name two decades ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

What a bloody catch 22. It's Kafkaesque how someone with intentions of following the law can get sucked into that people crunching machine.

That's the true danger of policies like that. They are supposed to be soul destroying but that kind of ruthless treatment is never confined to the people it's meant for.

That's why due process is important if you make a class of people illegal, you end up with false positives galore. And these organisations will not back down, rather double down.