Trump's Attempt to Deport Chinese Dissident Guan Heng is Part of an Awful Pattern

The administration has sought to deport numerous dissenters back to their oppressors.

Guan Heng. (Illustration: Adani Samat Photo: guanguanofficial/Youtube)

 

The Trump Administration's effort to deport Chinese dissident Guan Heng has rightly drawn widespread outrage and condemnation. Guan is a hero for his exposure of the Chinese government's oppression and persecution of the Uyghur minority, and he faces near-certain imprisonment or death if he is deported to China, or to Uganda (a Chinese-aligned state to which the Trump administration may be trying to send him). Legally, he has an rock-solid case for asylum.

Sadly, the effort to deport Guan is part of a broader pattern of Trump administration efforts to deport dissidents and victims of persecution back to the regimes that oppress them. These policies now include deporting Russian dissidents back to Vladimir Putin's brutal dictatorship, refugees who fled oppression in Cuba and Venezuela, Iranian Christians who fled persecution by that country's radical Islamist regime, and Afghans who fled the Taliban (including many who aided the US during the war). Such policies are obviously cruel and unjust. They are also strategically counterproductive.

A policy that essentially aids anti-American regimes in their persecution of dissidents undermines our position in the international war of ideas between these governments' ideologies and ours, and deters future would-be dissidents and allies from working against those governments or aiding us. This isn't making America Great Again. It's making us simultaneously evil and stupid.

Comments

[Social Justice is neither]

Considering you see deportation of terrorists, human traffickers and murderers as cruel and unjust I'm not inclined to believe you're honest about this or any other case.

[Botaglove]

Well you could just read the linked article. But I suppose insulting Ilya is easier and better fits your priors.

[Roger S]

Somin favors open borders. His "awful pattern" is that anyone gets deported from the USA.

[SRG2]

That of course is irrelevant to the reality of the regime deporting legitimate asylum seekers to the repressive admins they fled, which policy you evidently approve of.

[Roger S]

He is not a legitimate asylum seeker. He is a Chinese criminal with no business in the USA.

[David Nieporent]

Roger would've happily turned over Anne Frank to the Nazis.

[bloocow2]

(put in wrong place)

[David Nieporent]

Sorry, this was a wrong statement on my part; I should've said that Roger would've gleefully turned Anne Frank over to the Nazis.

[SRG2]

And accused her of being a criminal, too, in all likelihood.

[MollyGodiva]

Well what do you expect from a president who ran their campaign on promises to hurt innocent people.

[Zayphar]

What is missing from this story is a quote from the DHS stating why they are intending to deport this man.
Did he commit a felony?
Is he suspected of being part of a criminal enterprise?
Is he a child predator, or a sexual predator?
I can think of many reasons why the government would still want to deport him even though he is a political dissident.
This story needs more transparancy.
Do better Illya.

[bernard11]

From the linked article:

And so he fled China in 2021, traveling to Ecuador and eventually by boat to the U.S. He applied for asylum and obtained a work permit. He has been living quietly in New York ever since, working as an Uber driver and food deliverer.

If ICE has evidence he's an axe murderer let them show it.

But hey, the "Deport everyone" crowd is all for it, I'm sure.

[Lee Moore]

He decided to come here illegally, from Ecuador. He’s not a refugee, he’s an illegal immigrant.

That’s enough of a reason to deport him if he chooses not to deport himself.

Moreover it also advises other such people to deport themselves to a place of their own choosing, before the government finds them and deports them to somewhere they’d prefer not to be deported to.

[jb]

You just know that Lee More would be trying to find Jews to send back to Hitler in the late 30s if only he'd had the chance. That way we could send a good strong message to keep the other undesirables out.

[Lee Moore]

Hitler would not have accepted them back, since his policy before the war was to expel the Jews rather than to exterminate them.

In any event, Lee Moore's policy is "flee somewhere else, and if you've already done that, then "fleeing" to the USA from that somewhere else is not seeking "refuge". You've already got one.
If you're already here illegally, deport yourself to a place of your choosing, before we deport you to a place of our choosing."

Much the same as the FDR policy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Lee Moore — Can you better describe FDR's policy to deport whatever categories you care to name into lawless custody by tyrants, without due process. My sense of the relevant history seems to have overlooked that. I am, of course, aware of the shameful governmental misconduct to deny refuge to Jews fleeing Hitler. That has become notorious. What you advocate seems worse than that.

[David Nieporent]

He decided to come here illegally, from Ecuador. He’s not a refugee, he’s an illegal immigrant.

Which part of "he applied for asylum" confuses you?

[Lee Moore]

Not a thing. That he "applied for asylum" does not make him a refugee. Even in terms of the law, he would only be a refugee, if he was successful in his application.

But as we all know - though some pretend not to - the law defines all sorts of people as "refugees" who are not, in reality, refugees (as far as the "United States are concerned.)

In particular the sorts of people like this guy - ie a guy who has already escaped from the country where he claims he is persecuted, and who has already reached a safer place elsewhere. The next leg of the journey - into the United States - is simply illegal immigration, not escape from persecution.

He may have been a refugeee in Ecuador - though I doubt it. It would be surprising if he hadn't already passed through a number of other havens before he even got there.

[Sarcastr0]

So your vibes are that he shouldn’t be granted asylum. So you call him an illegal.

Well that sure reveals where you come from.

[Lee Moore]

Hey, Mr Vibeometer ! I see you still haven't got your knowing-what-other-people-are-thinking-despite-what-they're-saying module repaired.

I take my facts from bernard's summary above, and I add to it a dog that did not bark in the night - if he had been granted an entry visa when, or before, he "arrived by boat", Prof Somin would have mentioned it. Ergo, he entered illegally. Ergo, he's an illegal.

Should he be granted asylum, he'll cease to be an illegal. He'll be a successful asylum seeker. But we have another silent dog here. If he had been granted asylum, Prof Somin would have mentioned it. Ergo he has not yet been granted asylum, ergo he is still an illegal.

I charge nothing, btw, for these Inference 101 lessons.

I cannot say whether he "shouldn't" be granted asylum under the law. That is a legal matter about which I claim no special expertise...

...except that I am aware that asylum laws, pursuant to various treaties, generally permit "island-hopping" claims for asylum. ie if you escape from Prison Kingdom A to Safe Haven B, and you then choose to travel on to Safe Haven C, and from there to Safe Haven D and eventually to Safe Haven US, the asylum laws generally allow you to claim that when you journey from Safe Haven D to Safe Haven US, you are still "escaping" from Prison Kingdom A.

This is, IMHO, to use a a technical term - "cuckoo for cocoa puffs" - and should be eliminated from the law. You should only be able to claim asylum if you arrive directly in the US from Prison Kingdom A. That is the answer to the should/shouldn't question, policy wise.

To the extent that the US wishes to support refugees from Prison Kingdoms, who do not qualify as refugees-to-the-US under the sensible policy change I have explained above, I have no objection to the US voluntarily funding other countries, where these folk would qualify as refugees, to assist them to get on with their lives. Nor, obviously, do I have any objection to such folk applying for legal immigration status in the US, and joining the legal queue.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, those aren’t inferences.

Those are rationalizations, driving towards a predetermined outcome.

Incomplete facts, to which a pretty limited hot take of what the law says is more smugged than apllied.

Wordy, but in the end empty.

[Lee Moore]

https://reason.com/2025/12/17/guan-heng-exposed-chinas-uyghur-camps-ice-wants-to-deport-him/

A few months ago, in August, ICE detained him after he admitted he had initially entered the country illegally.

O noes ! My powers of inference are greater than yours. Who'da thunk it ? Well, pretty much everyone I guess.

driving towards a predetermined outcome

Just so.

"O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us! "

[David Nieporent]

Nor, obviously, do I have any objection to such folk applying for legal immigration status in the US, and joining the legal queue.

So like most people-who-pretend-they-only-oppose-illegal-immigration, you have no fucking clue how immigration law works. There. is. no. legal. queue. This whole "they need to wait their turn in line" is complete and utter bullshit, imagining a law that does not exist. If you want to say that you're fine with that, then just say that. But don't pretend that your issue is that someone skipped ahead of the people in front of him. That's not how any of it works. (Except for family reunification for non-immediate family members.) And of course a queue for refugees doesn't make any conceptual sense anyway.

[Lee Moore]

As it happens Mrs Moore is a legal immigrant, and I know she had to wait until the United States was good and ready to accept her.

Your gout is obviously playing up today.

[David Nieporent]

Spouses do not need to wait in any line.

[Lee Moore]

Spouses do not need to wait in any line.

In fact they do. I understand the current wait time for a green card for a spouse is about 18 months.

In any event, Mrs Moore was not Mrs Moore when she immigrated.

[KevinP]

Don’t make up bullshit and tell it to actual immigrants.

I am an immigrant and had to wait in the queue for several years until my turn came up. Search for the US Department of State Visa Bulletin to find the queues and their current dates.

The only people exempt from the queue are parents of US citizens and spouses of US citizens. Everyone else has to wait in a queue, often for several years.

Why do you support queue jumping? Do you think that is fair to the law abiding immigrants who obey the rules and wait patiently in line for their turn?

[David Nieporent]

Not a thing. That he "applied for asylum" does not make him a refugee.

You are correct. The fact that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country makes him a refugee.

Even in terms of the law, he would only be a refugee, if he was successful in his application.

You are incorrect, for the same reason your first statement was correct.

[Lee Moore]

The fact that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country makes him a refugee.

Wisely avoiding engagement by assuming your conclusion.

[grb]

What "assumptions" ?!?

That Guan has "a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country... ?!?

Are so so dishonest you're denying that ?!?

[Lee Moore]

I'm denying that that is an adequate description of what a refugee is, in plain English.

As it happens I'm also denying that it's even adequate as a legal description of what a refugee is.

[steeltown lad]

The hole in this story, for me, is what happened to this fellow’s asylum claim. Has it been denied because he failed to apply for asylum while following appropriate procedures (there are such procedures)? Denied for some other reason? Is he being deported while his claim is pending? There’s no information on this.
I generally fall into the camp that those here illegally should be deported to their country of origin, and that our asylum laws are being massively abused, given their original intention. But this seems to be a case, and person, which our asylum laws were designed to protect.

[David Nieporent]

Is he being deported while his claim is pending?

That is what the reports are, yes.

[bloocow2]

Here's a guess: they deported him because the Chinese government asked them to.

[Botaglove]

ICE thinks entering the country illegally, which is what he did, is a very bad crime in itself and they need no other justification to send him back to a likely death.

And in this position they are backed by a majority of Trump's supporters.

[bernard11]

they need no other justification to send him back to a likely death.

"They" being pro-lifers all.

[ReaderY]

We’re getting to the point where posts like this are so off the mark they’re like articles describing some anti-semitic incident or other in 1930s Germany and then complaining that Hitler is completely clueless and incompetent at protecting Jews’ civil rights. Is Professor Somin really that clueless about this administration’s aims?

Look. This administration looks to China as a model form of government and wants a China-style dictatorship for this country. Why in the world would it want to harbor people who don’t want such a regime in this country when it has the ability to deport them? Victims of China’s regime are highly likely to oppose creating a similar regime here. Why would Trump want to harbor opponents of his core goals?

[Roger S]

The USA has no interest in an Islamic minority in China. If he wants to join a pro-Islam political movement, then he could have gone to an Islamic country. The USA does not need more illegal aliens.

[Botaglove]

"The USA has no interest in an Islamic minority in China. If he wants to join a pro-Islam political movement, then he could have gone to an Islamic country. The USA does not need more illegal aliens."

Too unclear. Let me fix that for you.

The USA has no interest in humans who are not American citizens. If he wants to help out nonAmerican humans he should go to a country that cares about humans who arent' from their country. The USA does not need more people who care about people who are not American citizens.

[bloocow2]

As much as it saddens me, I think the cruelty is the point of these policies (or at least it's complete indifference to cruelty as a side effect of the policy, which is functionally the same thing to me)

See also: USAID and PEPFAR (the gutting of which has killed more people than alleged drug boats from Venezuela ever will), overzealous ICE crackdowns, deportation of hundreds of Afghanis for the crimes of one of them - many of whom are in danger from the Taliban for *assisting the US military*

Like, it's all of a piece with this administration. As someone who works in international development, the USAID thing is especially distressing to me. But I have unfortunately come to expect it.

[bloocow2]

Oh, and before anyone says "But you're Australian! The Australian government has done cruel things too!":

1. You are absolutely right! And I vociferously oppose it when it happens!

2. If the standard is "you can only criticize another country's policies when everything about your own country is perfectly in order, otherwise you're a hypocrite", then you guys would never be able to criticize any country ever, throughout all of time. It's a bad standard!

[Botaglove]

You're on the wrong blog if you think most here will criticize Australia for doing cruel things.

For most here, cruelty is the point, and the reason they like the current administration.

[Roger S]

Why would cruelty be the point? Trump was elected to deport the illegal aliens. Is there a less cruel way to do it?

[Lee Moore]

There certainly is. Deport yourself before you are deported- that gives you better options on where you choose to go.

Moreover you are already an experienced self deporter, you’ve done it before, else you wouldn’t be here. You know how to do it.

[Roger S]

Yes, that is what Trump is doing. Encouraging aliens to self-deport. Not cruel.

[jb]

Sure there is. You have finite law enforcement and court resources, so you can focus them on trying to find and deport people who aren't going to be killed by oppressive regimes.

(And as Lee Moore makes clear above, the cruelty is the point because Trump is trying to be so awful to immigrants that they'll voluntarily flee the country instead of risking getting caught. So it's not like this is just a point of view invented by people opposed to Trump's approach. It's embraced by many of his fanboys.)

[bloocow2]

It just sickens me. I'm currently working in Papua New Guinea, and have met people whose family members have died because of USAID funding getting suddenly pulled. Other organisations have since been able to take up some of the slack, but the way this was handled was utterly inhumane and shortsighted.

[Roger S]

Complain to those who politicized and corrupted the USAID.

[David Nieporent]

Do you mean Trump, or Musk?

[KevinP]

You are Australian?

Your government turned your entire country into a massive prison camp during Covid

Australia: once a prison camp, always a prison camp.

[bloocow2]

Thank you for your input! It wasn't an easy time!

I could have done without the cheap-shot cliche about Australia's history, but I understand that it must have been irresistible.

[thesafesurfer]

Ilya Somin is an absolute and total disgrace. The man is a "law" professor, and does not enforce the law.

Guan Heng BROKE THE LAW. He traveled without authorization from the Bahamas by boat to Florida after fleeing China in 2021.

Of course charlatans like Ilya Somin care only about their ideology not the law. Ilya Somin has no ethical principles at all. He has only ideological relativism.

[Bill Poser]

Actually, he is following the legal process for applying for asylum.

[Currentsitguy]

Don't care. If you are in the country illegally you can either leave of your own accord or you will be found and removed. You don't have to go back to where you came from if you have reason not to, but you can't stay here. We're not the world's safe space. If you want to come here and have something to offer, follow the legal process like millions of people who did it the correct and legal way. Out first and foremost responsibility is to our own citizens and legal residents.

The removal of illegals is exactly what I voted for.

[bloocow2]

He's being removed to a country that will kill him, or to a country that will almost certainly then pass him to a country that will kill him. Not for a violent crime, not for theft, but for exposing the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people and embarrassing a Communist government.

Like, maybe you could make an exception in this case? Or is the crime of coming to your country via boat so heinous that it warrants death? (and if you do think it warrants death... what on earth is wrong with you?)

[Roger S]

What did he think was going to happen when he embarrassed the Commie government?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe he thought that the leader of the free world would protect him rather than seek to have him killed.

[bloocow2]

Imagine going to America and thinking that it's the land of the free and that you'll be protected from totalitarian retribution there! Ha! What an absolute sucker.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think Lee Moore would establish an ICE detention headquarters inside the plinth of the Statue of Liberty.

[bloocow2]

It's just hard for me to imagine the kind of cold-hearted sociopath that would look at this guy's case and go "Nope! Here illegally! Get him outta here!" without any second thoughts whatsoever.

It's like the people here in Australia who cheered us "stopping the boats", when all it really means is that this miniscule trickle of people is now someone else's problem. They'll just risk their lives travelling to some other country, hooray! It disgusts me, and I'm not afraid to say it.

[Lee Moore]

"The boats" came from Indonesia, carrying people who were not Indonesians, but mostly from the Middle East. In other words they were economic migrants to Australia, who, even if they had genuinely been refugees, could have stopped at any of scores of other countries along the way. But countries with less generous welfare than Australia.

The "stop the boats" policy was outstandingly successful :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-28/we-will-stop-the-boats-promise-check/5474206?future=true&

Cutting 300 boats a year before, to one in 18 months after. Of course that didn't only mean preventing lots of illegal immigration into Australia, it also deterred people from attempting the journey, meaning the migrants themselves stopped risking their lives on this dangerous sea crossing, once they realized it was pointless.

Much like the dangerous journey through Central America to Biden's open southern border. Worth trying maybe for the economic prize of establishing yourself in the USA, but not worth it otherwise.

[Incunabulum]

Yes. It's someone else's problem - share the load.

[Incunabulum]

He should have stayed in Ecuador then.

[Incunabulum]

Also, you are not America - your opinion on how we handle this is irrelevant. Worry about your own country's honor.

[David Nieporent]

We're not the world's safe space.

Well, not anymore. But we're supposed to be.

[grb]

A reminder to all of Trump's Nazi disciples here: There is a LEGAL process to apply for asylum after entering the country. Guan Heng followed that LEGAL process. So all your bleating about him being "illegal" is so much brainless bullshit. He followed the rules permitted him by law. And I can scarcely conceive of anyone with a clearer and more just case for asylum than him.

If Roger S or thesafesurfer or Lee Moore want to make a case why the laws permitting an application for asylum shouldn't apply to Guan Heng, then good luck and Godspeed. Since you're all Third Reich-wannabes, I don't expect you'll come up with much.

If Roger S or thesafesurfer or Lee Moore want to make a case why the laws permitting an application for asylum should be repealed (lest they allow anyone else fleeing for their life from the Chinese government), then please go at it. You've covered yourself in enough shit ranting about this case. A little extra stench won't make any difference.

But Roger S, thesafesurfer, or Lee Moore don't get their own pretend facts. All the slavish tongue-polish they give their orange-tinted god's shoe leather doesn't buy that right. So they need to find a new set of arguments.

[Roger S]

Heng can apply for asylum, but he is just a Chinese criminal, and his application should be rejected, and he should be deported. There is no good reason for him to be in the USA.

[grb]

We have our first halfwit Trump supporter abandoning his old fact-free imbecilic argument for a (new) even more fact-free imbecilic argument.

I look forward to the rest of them disgracing themselves in turn.

Is a lobotomy required to become a Trump supporter? Because nothing I pointed to should have been a surprise to anyone over the age of nine. Yet all you dumbass keyboard warriors are upthread repeatedly whining "illegal", "illegal" "illegal".

It's like you turned your fucking brain off.

[Roger S]

Name-calling. You do not address the issue.

[David Nieporent]

[mulched]

He was already safe in Ecuador. He already had asylum. He chose to immigrate to the US illegally instead. Send him back to Ecuador.

[David Nieporent]

He already had asylum.

He did not. Why are you making up facts?

Send him back to Ecuador.

He's not from Ecuador, has never lived in Ecuador, and Ecuador hasn't offered to accept him.

[Lee Moore]

There is a LEGAL process to apply for asylum after entering the country. Guan Heng followed that LEGAL process. So all your bleating about him being "illegal" is so much brainless bullshit. He followed the rules permitted him by law. And I can scarcely conceive of anyone with a clearer and more just case for asylum than him.

If he has a valid claim for asylum, the courts will order him to be granted asylum, however silly our asylum laws might be in offering asylum to someone who has already departed from the place he says is persecuting him, and who has entered the US illegally, and only then submitted a claim for asylum.

[David Nieporent]

If he has a valid claim for asylum, the courts will order him to be granted asylum,

…unless Trump has him sent back to his death first.

however silly our asylum laws might be in offering asylum to someone who has already departed from the place he says is persecuting him, and who has entered the US illegally, and only then submitted a claim for asylum.

"Silly?" How do you imagine it working any other way? How do you think a refugee could submit a claim for asylum before getting here? How do you think a person who intends to do so would come to the U.S. "legally"? (There was a way: the CBP One app — but Trump immediately shut that down when taking office.)

[Lee Moore]

How do you imagine it working any other way? How do you think a refugee could submit a claim for asylum before getting here?

You can apply for asylum at a border post or port of entry, before you have entered. You can also apply for refugee status from outside the US. You can enter legally and then apply for asylum. And if you enter illegally, you can present yourself immediately to the authorities to apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity, rather than disappear secretly into the interior and keep your head down for four years, until ICE appears to deport you.

I note that you have again wisely dodged the point that the guy did not come directly to the US from China but had passed through at least one and probably several other countries where he could have claimed asylum. It may be, as I said, that our laws are silly enough to grant asylum to people who arrive here from a place where they are already safe, but I reserve the right to point out that this is a very silly law indeed.

[grb]

Lee Moore : "I note that you have again wisely dodged the point that the guy did not come directly to the US from China but had passed through at least one and probably several other countries..."

He doesn't need to dodge it because it's irrelevant to whether Guan is legally following the asylum laws of this country, a question you are dodging.

Lee Miller : "... our laws are silly enough to grant asylum to people ..."

So we've gone from "Guan is an illegal" to "I don't like the United States laws so I'm going to call him illegal whether he's following the laws or not".

Bottom line? Your old argument is dead and buried. Start from new and make your case : We have someone who showed exception courage, principles, and integrity exposing the brutal crimes of the Chinese regime. He now has cause to fear for his life because of this brave act. Pre-Trump and MAGA, this country was the leader of the free world. Why don't you think Guan should be given asylum here?

[Lee Moore]

You are very confused.

He is an illegal immigrant because he entered the US illegally as he has already admitted himself. Should he succeed in his asylum claim, he will cease to be an illegal immigrant, but since he hasn't yet succeeded, he remains an illegal immigrant.

I expect, apart from entering the US illegally, he has also illegally acquired a social security number, since I believe Uber requires one from its drivers.

Moving on. The steam coming out of your ears has obscured from you that what I was discussing with Mr Nieporent was the "silliness" of our asylum laws in permitting "island hopping" asylum claims. That is obviously a discussion about what the laws ought to be, not a discussion about what the laws are.

Consequently, when Mr Nieporent dodges the point about "island-hopping" - that is directly relevant to the ought question under discussion. He wishes to avoid it, presumably because he has no good answer. And your wittering about whether the gentleman in question is or is not legally following the laws of this country is quite irrelevant to this "ought" discussion.

I am not discussing with Mr Nieporent whether he is in fact legally following the laws of this country, in relation to his asylum claim, since neither of us knows sufficient details to comment. Maybe he is maybe he isn't, but as I say the answer to this question is irrelevant to the question of what our asylum laws ought to be.

But as noted up top, even if he is scrupulously following the asylum laws, now that he has made his claim, that doesn't prevent him from being a lawbreaker as regards his entry into this country, and, probably in relation to the acquistion of an SSN too.

Your last paragraph is thick with emoting, which belongs in the "ought" question rather than the "is" question. Even if he were St Paul himself, he ought not to have any right of asylum the United States, if he has passed through other safe countries without claiming asylum there. But if he were St Paul himself, there is no reason why he should not be given a place in our society by our discretion. His spurning of other safe havens is sufficient, under the ought question, to deny him any right to be here. His fine qualities (as stipulated) may make him a credit to our society if we choose to make him a member of it.

[Incunabulum]

Actually, he did not.

He demanded asylum after being arrested. That is not the process.

The process is you announce your presence and demand asylum at the first practical point. And that is ignoring that he could have asked for asylum in Ecuador.

[Kleppe]

To be clear, Ilya ALWAYS opposes deportation -- no matter the circumstances. This isn't a principled objection he is raising, but a craven one.

[Roger S]

Yes, and favors importing millions more migrants, and changing zoning laws to force Americans into overcrowded Somali neighborhoods.

[SRG2]

But that does not mean that he is wrong in the specific instances where legitimate asylum seekers are returned to oppressive regimes - and you evidently approve of that policy, as a xenophobic cultist.

[Roger S]

Yes, it does mean Somin is wrong. He is a Russian Jew who seeks to destroy the USA.

[David Nieporent]

He is an American atheist. And you are an American Nazi who hates the U.S. and everything it stands for.

[Incunabulum]

Why did he not seek asylum in Ecuador?

[David Nieporent]

I don't think you know the meaning of "principled." Or "craven."

[F.D. Wolf]

To receive asylum, one must first ask for asylum. There is a legal process in place. Of course, in reality, few bother to ask for asylum until after they are caught being illegally present in the United States.

What Somin, great champion for the "rule of law", as usual, is demanding that immigration laws be ignored. The Trump administration, contrary to Somin's assertion, is not trying to deport Guan Heng, but is actually following the law and legal process.

I have little doubt he will be granted asylum via the system of laws that Congress has set forth.

[grb]

You're so full of it. The Trump administration, contrary to your assertion, is trying to deport Guan Heng. It was first going to send him back to China, but a public outcry halted that. Currently Trump is trying to send him to Uganda, but that country's deep economic and military ties to China will likely make that a death sentence too.

So here's my question, F.D. Wolf: If the actions of Trump are so disgusting you need to create a whole fantasy world of black-is-white facts, why don't you get a new politician to toady to? One that you can defend honestly....

[F.D. Wolf]

Well, whatever, Bluesky.

He has been illegally present in the United States for nearly five years. He was arrested by ICE agents during an unrelated enforcement action against his roommates. It is not the role of arresting officers to act as judges and hold court at the scene to determine the validity of his asylum claim. They had no choice but to detain him, and he is now before an immigration judge. I would be inclined to grant him asylum, and I suspect the immigration judge will too.

[Incunabulum]

Why do he not stay in Ecuador, Somin?