this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
645 points (99.2% liked)

News

36534 readers
2083 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Immigration officials detained a US citizen for nearly 10 days in Arizona, according to court records and press reports.

On 8 April, a border patrol official found Hermosillo “without the proper immigration documents” and claimed that the young American had admitted entering the US illegally from Mexico.

On 17 April, a federal judge dismissed his case. “He did say he was a US citizen, but they didn’t believe him.”

“Under the Trump administration’s theory of the law, the government could have banished this U.S. citizen to a Salvadoran prison then refused to do anything to bring him back,” Mark Joseph Stern, a legal analyst for Slate, wrote on Bluesky. “This is why the Constitution guarantees due process to all. Could it be more obvious?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
  1. based on the articles about this, that's probably not what happened and they just flat out lied, just like they did in the other recent case of detained US citizen
  2. even if they DID ask that and he for whatever reason answered "no" and refused to elaborate and never bothered to mention that he was a US citizen (hint: not what happened - he said he was a citizen every step of the way), that is still not "admitting to being here illegally" and portraying it as such is a deliberate misrepresentation

Fascist don't need your help, especially if you just have conjecture on your side.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think his point was that they worded the question to make reasonable answers possible to be interpreted wrong to their benefit. In other words, they likely were trained to asked trap questions.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even so, the guy said he told everyone he was a citizen. If someone asks me if I'm here on a visa and I respond "no" and then they arrest me and I'm like "I'm a citizen" you can't then act like they were using trick questions for plausible deniability. The second I say I'm a citizen that goes out the window regardless of what I was asked. If the guy answered every question with "I'm a citizen and (answer)" I don't think the result would be any different, so allowing them to hide behind "trick questions" obscures the fact that they are lying to get POC rounded up. They are lying and they don't need "trick questions" because they don't care what your answer is. You could answer the trick question "correctly" and still be rounded up. Anything suggesting that the fault lies in anything but the institution and its officers is a distraction imho. So I feel like "trick question" is a deflection/distraction and I have not read anything to even suggest that's the case. It seems like they 1) didn't believe him and 2) lied to cover it up. I have not read anything that suggests the citizen in question answered a question that may have been suspicious but I have read that he was not believed.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not saying they "should" be able to get away with that. Just that they probably will. I am on the side of it should be illegal for cops to lie to you during an interrogation. Even attempting to use a trick question falls into the same boat in my opinion.