SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than this man.
Chief Justice John Roberts is smart and skilled. He will be remembered, however, as a historic failure.
This is not a claim to make lightly, but his record compels it, because Roberts’ legacy will be defined by two catastrophic roles he played.
First, Roberts has played the lead role in destroying indispensable rules of our democracy.
Second, Roberts has played the lead judicial role in serving as the handmaiden to President Trump’s efforts to turn our democracy into an autocracy. (This historic failure will be detailed next week in Part II).
Roberts’ role in destroying essential rules of our democracy
Chief Justice Roberts has taken the lead in writing a series of opinions that have destroyed essential rules governing our democracy. They deal with:
The following opinions, written by Roberts and joined in all but one case only by the Republican-appointed majority on the Court, have done unprecedented harm to our democracy.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It declared key sections of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, the most consequential voting rights law ever enacted, to be unconstitutional. The Act was reenacted periodically over decades until the Shelby County decision.
The Roberts opinion unleashed a wave of regressive and discriminatory voting changes by states and local jurisdictions that disadvantaged minority voters and impeded their voting rights and their ability to fully participate in the democratic process.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) which struck down the aggregate limit on all contributions by a donor in an election cycle, a provision previously held constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
In Buckley, the Supreme Court had found that unlimited contributions given to support candidates were inherently corrupt. The McCutcheon decision, however, eviscerated the limits on individual contributions to candidates by unleashing billionaires, millionaires, and other big money donors to give unlimited, often huge, contributions to Super PACs to benefit specific candidates.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion for a 5–4 Court decision in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), in which the Court decided that it could not act on challenges to partisan redistricting plans. The decision claimed that the Court is incapable of establishing standards for determining when partisan maps become unconstitutional, no matter how extreme.
The Rucho decision means that there are no constitutional restrictions on partisan gerrymandering, no matter how rigged the plans are. The result is that politicians get to choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.
Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion in McDonnell v. United States, (2016), which vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell for honest services fraud and extortion. In his opinion, Roberts said that McDonnell’s actions did not constitute “official acts” under the applicable laws, including the bribery law.
In its decision, the Court adopted a narrow, unrealistic construction of the term “official act” to exclude various acts of an officeholder that should be covered, even when those acts are done in direct exchange for gifts or other benefits. For all practical purposes, the Court has left the country without effective bribery laws to prevent public officials from selling their office for financial benefits.
Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6–3 majority in Trump v. United States (2024), which gave Trump presidential criminal immunity. The decision violated a guiding principle of our Founders that no person is above the law. The Roberts opinion placing Trump above the law and also giving him personal control of the Justice Department and FBI can be seen in such outrageous Trump pronouncements as the statement that he has “The right to do anything I want to. I’m the president of the United States,” and “I run the country and the world.”
It is unlikely that any Chief Justice in history played more of a role in destroying more of our nation’s democracy rules than Roberts. And that is how he will be remembered.
After years reporting from post-authoritarian states, I now see the same patterns in my own backyard—where justice has collapsed, truth is suppressed, and power no longer answers to the people.
I’ve seen the aftermath of collapsed nations—now I see it happening here.
As a journalist and analyst, I’ve spent the last several years living and reporting in regions that have undergone massive political transformations. I lived for years in the Czech Republic, where I met many people with direct ties to the Velvet Revolution. I walked the streets of Prague with those who once occupied them in protest. I studied the Russian language, traveled extensively through the former Eastern Bloc, and listened closely to the survivors of failed regimes—those who remember the slow unraveling of authority, trust, and truth.
I’ve also spent significant time in South America, where I witnessed a very different kind of collapse—and rebirth. In Bolivia, I spoke with officials and journalists who lived through the 2019 coup and saw their country fight its way back to democracy. I’ve walked with communities who understand, firsthand, how empires and juntas collapse—and how people organize in the rubble.
Now I believe this country is collapsing.
Not in the dramatic, Hollywood fashion we tend to imagine—there are no tanks in the streets, no blackout zones or food lines. But what I am witnessing now in Northern Kentucky, through my work with the Northern Kentucky Truth & Accountability Project (NKTAP), is unmistakable: a slow-motion institutional implosion. And it mirrors what I have seen in failed or failing states around the world.
In Northern Kentucky, I’ve uncovered a network of corruption that spans law enforcement, prosecutorial offices, courts, and local media. I’ve documented how whistleblowers are silenced, public records denied, and criminal cases manipulated to protect the powerful.
Police ignore credible murder leads. Prosecutors bury evidence. Courts issue orders without hearings. And journalists—some out of fear, others out of complicity—refuse to report the truth. In my own case, I’ve faced obstruction, threats, targeted harassment, and retaliatory smears simply for investigating what any decent system should have investigated itself.
Our institutions are no longer capable of self-correction. That means the burden of accountability, truth telling, and justice now falls on us.
The structures of governance still stand. The buildings are still open. But the rule of law has collapsed in all but name. What remains is theater—a simulation of justice that functions to preserve power, not serve the public.
This isn’t just about Northern Kentucky. It’s a microcosm. I’m in touch with colleagues around the country—investigators, reporters, former civil servants—and I hear the same story again and again:
We are in a moment of mass epistemic failure, where truth itself is destabilized and power no longer answers to reason, law, or fact.
It doesn’t come with a bang. It comes with:
This is what I’ve seen before. In Prague. In La Paz. In the fractured republics of the former USSR. It begins when the official channels of accountability no longer function—and the people must build their own.
That’s what I’m doing with the Northern Kentucky Truth & Accountability Project. We’re documenting. Archiving. Speaking to victims. Exposing public records that local officials tried to bury. We’re creating a people’s archive—a living record of a regime in decline.
Because when institutions stop telling the truth, the only way forward is to tell it ourselves.
I used to believe that America was “different”—that our legal tradition, constitutional system, and civic institutions would inoculate us from the kinds of collapse I saw abroad. I no longer believe that.
The US is not collapsing because it is uniquely broken. It is collapsing because it is a state like any other, vulnerable to the same corruption, elite decay, and loss of legitimacy that have brought down countless systems before.
The question is not whether collapse is happening. It is. The question is what we do after we accept that reality.
We can pretend this is just “polarization.” We can tell ourselves that if we just wait for the next election, the pendulum will swing back. Or we can admit the truth: Our institutions are no longer capable of self-correction. That means the burden of accountability, truth telling, and justice now falls on us—on journalists, organizers, whistleblowers, and ordinary people with the courage to say: enough.
I’ve seen what happens when people organize. I’ve also seen what happens when they don’t.
And I’m telling you: Now is the time to choose.
On August 29, US District Judge Jia M. Cobb wrote, "The Supreme Court has therefore 'long held that no person shall be removed from the United States' without due process of law." Will the administration listen?
"I'm here because of due process."
In June, a Houston immigration attorney was addressing protesters across the street from a prison owned and operated by CoreCivic for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A group called FIEL—the Spanish acronym for Immigrant Families and Students in the Fight—sponsored the rally.
"People can be given a court date to appear, and then the prosecutor can literally dismiss their case, send a text message or a Teams message—yes, I know that you guys use Teams, DHS—to the ICE agents, who are in the hallway, and then they know exactly who's coming out."
Several CoreCivic employees watched from outside the perimeter fence. When I asked what they thought of the protest, one said, "I'm not at liberty to speak." His identification tag, flipped around so that his name was hidden, hung from his neck on a purple lanyard with white lettering that said "CoreCivic Diversity Equity Inclusion." CoreCivic used to be the Corrections Corporation of America, which boasted in promotional materials that its Houston detention center was "the world's first privately designed and built prison."
The attorney, Bianca Santorini, said: "The men [with their faces covered] who are approaching people who are leaving court did not have any badges, they did not have any uniforms, they had zero insignia, they did not identify themselves. And when I refused to let them detain one of the individuals that they approached, and I specifically asked them what agency they were with, they didn't answer... They said, 'We're here assisting' .... And that's [who is] coming up behind adults, children, women, and just grabbing them and taking them."
I'd met Santorini outside the South Gessner immigration court earlier that week. FIEL had posted a call for "media and supporters" because ICE was arresting immigrants who were showing up for their hearings. Soon after I got there, I joined a small group following the crying and screaming of a woman in the parking garage adjoined to the building by a glassed-in walkway. She and other family members watched four unidentified men put their handcuffed relative into an unmarked car.
Their relative, a Cuban man, had appeared in court as part of the application process for political asylum, and now Santorini calmly but loudly spoke to him through the noise and confusion as agents put him in the car. After he was gone, she spoke to his relatives. Then she showed me a court document, folding it to hide the applicant's name, which documented that the immigration judge (IJ) had ended the whole process at the government's request and denied the Cuban a chance to argue his case.
In the garage she said in Spanish, "The law is not operating here. There is no law."
I went back to the main lobby, through security, and up to the 10th floor to watch proceedings in an immigration courtroom. As I stepped off the elevator, I saw that two plainclothes men had just handcuffed another man. One of the presumed government agents pulled up his "neck gaiter" to hide his face, keeping one hand on his prisoner. The prisoner said, "Ayúdame." Help me.
It happened quickly. The masked agent had the handcuffed man at the back of the elevator. His partner stepped toward me and barked, "Get back!" and "You're not coming with us!" I asked the masked agent if the man could tell me who he was or whether there was someone I could call for him. The agent said no. The elevator doors closed. It was the end of the day and the hallways were empty. A clerk watched from behind the check-in window of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is part of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
*
In May, attorneys around the country started noticing that plainclothes agents were grabbing noncitizens in hallways—sometimes in bathrooms—outside immigration courtrooms and taking them away. The new tactic was straightforward. DHS lawyers ask immigration judges to dismiss cases. Judges tell the "respondents" they may leave. ICE (and sometimes other federal agents) are waiting in the hallways to grab them.
These courthouse arrests have focused on people who arrived less than two years ago. After their cases are dismissed, they're put into a process called "expedited removal," a "cursory removal process with almost no substantive or procedural protections that requires detention in most circumstances." The process has always been intended for people at the border who had arrived less than two weeks earlier. The Trump administration widened the net exponentially. That widening is based on two policy changes, both of which, according to an August lawsuit by African Communities Together, are illegal, and which the administration implemented to help it reach a reported daily arrest "goal" of 3,000 by "turning mandatory hearings into traps." (On August 29, in a related case, Make the Road New York v. Noem, Judge Cobb temporarily blocked the expansion of expedited removal; the administration has appealed.)
The first change was a memo from DHS that allows ICE agents to make arrests in courthouses even when doing so violates local laws against such arrests. The second change was a DOJ memo that "allows" judges to dismiss ongoing proceedings, including unresolved asylum applications, without giving any reason, so that ICE can make those hallway arrests. The DOJ has made it clear to IJ's that they must grant these motions to dismiss or risk losing their jobs. This threat is important because it facilitates the collaboration between the government attorney and the immigration judge.
"If you have no justice, and you only have enforcement, you no longer have a democracy, you have an authoritarian state."
What we usually think of as a judge is part of the judicial branch of government (as per Article III of the US Constitution). But immigration judges are what Robert S. Kahn, in Other People's Blood: US Immigration Prisons in the Reagan Decade (1996), calls "bureaucrats in judges' robes." In immigration court, the government attorney is employed by DHS, and the immigration judge is employed by DOJ. That means they have the same boss: the president.
Certainly many IJ's fight to remain independent. But, as one judge in New York told me, referring to those appearing in court without lawyers, "What was disturbing was that if we gave pro se respondents time to respond to the motion to dismiss made unexpectedly by DHS counsel in court, ICE would pick them up anyway."
For the sake of more "efficient" deportations, such judges are being replaced by former DHS attorneys, by military lawyers, and, in Florida, by National Guard officers. (The latter scenario might be illegal.) DOJ has announced that it will now assign lawyers "without prior immigration experience" to serve as temporary immigration judges. To help shield the new judges from any potential empathy, the new DOJ rule also reverses Biden-era changes by replacing the word "noncitizen" with "alien," and changing "unaccompanied child" back to "unaccompanied alien child."
George Pappas, one of those recently fired, told PBS, "We have a huge increase in supporting enforcement and we have... an attack on the court system [and] on judges." The "huge increase" is $170 billion for immigration enforcement, which includes $45 billion for detention operations, or "at least three or four times the amount they currently spend on immigration detention," Eunice Cho of the American Civil Liberties Union told Mother Jones.
There are approximately 60,000 immigration detainees acknowledged to be held by the US as of late August—"a number that excludes thousands more held in off-the-books facilities," according to Austin Kocher of Syracuse University. The administration's stated goal is a detention capacity of 100,000. Detention is part of the deportation process, and the administration has suggested to Time magazine that it would start by banishing 1 million human beings each year, eventually to target 15 million people in "the largest Mass Deportation Operation in History."
Pappas said, "If you have no justice, and you only have enforcement, you no longer have a democracy, you have an authoritarian state."
*
Immigration law is complicated even without the language barrier. One judge in Houston had these exchanges with a respondent through an interpreter:
"Do you want to designate a country of removal?"
"I don't understand."
"What kind of relief are you going to be seeking?"
"I don't understand."
When a Nicaraguan woman holding her infant was ordered deported, she told the judge, "I want to take my daughter with me." The judge said that "the court" had no control over the "removal" process, but that she had 30 days to file an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals. She said, "I don't understand."
Not surprisingly, immigrants are much more likely to win their cases when they have lawyers—which they are not entitled to, as in the criminal justice system—and when they're not detained. That's why the immigration agency wants more people detained and has always opposed due process and interfered with legal help.
In Houston, attorney Santorini noticed that government agents waited until volunteer lawyers were gone before making arrests. On a day when she and other local lawyers organized themselves to show up in all the courtrooms, there were no arrests. That afternoon, in another garage press conference, a reporter from Spanish-language TV asked a Venezuelan man flanked by the volunteer lawyers whether he knew that ICE was arresting people who showed up for court. The man said in Spanish, "Yes, obviously. My legs were shaking, I had to go the bathroom, my head hurt—all the symptoms of terrible stress, but I have to do things legally."
In Sacramento, the government actually barred attorneys from immigration court at least once, Kamalpreet Chohan of the California Immigration Project told me. At a press conference in late May outside the federal building in Sacramento, attorney Chohan said: "ICE wants the public to believe that immigrants are missing their court dates, or that they have done something wrong. But that couldn't be further from the truth. It is ICE that is obstructing justice—spreading fear, misinformation, and chaos in order to justify its actions."
A protester holds a sign at a rally outside a Houston CoreCivic facility on June 13, 2025. (Photo by Mark Dow)
*
The media and public have tuned into a previously obscure aspect of the immigration process. Communities around the country are organizing, and experts are training people to observe court proceedings and support immigrants through "accompaniment." On a smaller scale this has been happening for years. Now in Denver, the American Friends Service Committee has over 100 volunteer court watchers. In San Diego, when pastors showed up at immigration court, ICE agents "scattered" and there were no arrests.
The administration has responded. In a high-profile incident, New York mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested outside a courtroom. Such violence and interference are widespread. Federal agents have detained or arrested immigration court observers in Denver and New York. In Sacramento, a volunteer observer was roughed up by agents when she tried to accompany an immigrant. In Phoenix, activists were barred from distributing "know your rights" cards.
She told me that my presence put the applicant in danger—never mind that she was trying to deport the applicant to Cuba because (among the reasons which the judge had read aloud) the multiple beatings at the hands of Cuban police were "not excessive."
For now at least, federal law allows public access to immigration court except in certain specified situations. But in Houston that didn't stop judges from telling observers and journalists, myself included, that they had to leave the courtroom, or needed to make an appointment first, or could not take notes. In Sacramento, the government has repeatedly stopped volunteers and reporters from entering the federal building, and a Sacramento Bee reporter was threatened with detention himself for standing in a hallway near immigration courtrooms.
*
When I walked into one immigration courtoom in Houston during a recess, the judge and the DHS attorney were chatting about the latter's military service. There were no other observers or respondents there. The lawyer suggested that the judge tell me to leave. The judge said he saw no need to close the hearing and went back "on the record" to order the removal of respondents who had "failed to appear." The proceeding was over in a few minutes. There wasn't even something to hide. In the hallway I asked the attorney, a DHS supervisor, why he'd wanted the judge to close a public hearing. He said, "Have a good day, sir," and kept walking.
I know that lawyer's name because when judges go on the record, they announce their own names and those of the lawyers and respondents who are present. But reporter Debbie Nathan wrote in The Intercept that an IJ in New York recently refused to say a DHS lawyer's name even "after stating her own name and those of the immigrants and their lawyers" because (the judge said) "'things lately have changed.'" This makes sense, of course, as the equivalent of agents hiding their faces.
In another courtoom I listened as a judge read aloud his reasons for denying political asylum to someone. Again, there were no other observers—just me, the judge, his clerk, an interpreter, the DHS lawyer, the asylum applicant, and her lawyer. When the judge finished reading, he told the applicant her deadline for filing an appeal. The applicant nodded to me as she left with her lawyer. The judge and the clerk left. Then the DHS lawyer asked me who I was, and I told her. She began screaming, "Security!" over and over again.
She told me that my presence put the applicant in danger—never mind that she was trying to deport the applicant to Cuba because (among the reasons which the judge had read aloud) the multiple beatings at the hands of Cuban police were "not excessive." She kept screaming. I sat down to wait. The security guard who came rushing in recogized me. We had chatted on my previous visits, and he told the DHS lawyer that I was just observing immigration court. She kept yelling. The judge's clerk came in. Then the court administrator came in and asked if I'd wait while they all spoke to the judge.
Asylum applicants are entitled to confidentiality (although the US government has often violated it), and according to immigration law an IJ may closes an asylum hearing at the request of the applicant or at their own discretion. According to the law, and as I've confirmed with a different immigration judge, my presence in court was legal. EOIR's own webpage says so here and here (last accessed September 3, 2025). A sympathetic if overly cautious DOJ official still suggested it would be safer to avoid writing about this.
After about 10 minutes, the court administrator returned and said, "Sorry you were on the receiving end of that" and "We'll talk to DHS about that."
*
After about three weeks, we learned the name of the man arrested. He had been transported by ICE with the Cuban man whom Santorini spoke to in the garage, and the Cuban knew his first name. That was enough to let us find his full name on a copy of the day's docket. ICE's "online detainee locator" said that Carlos wasn't in the system. But an employee at one GEO-ICE immigration prison north of Houston helped, and we found him at another, GEO-ICE's Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas.
A group went through security, up the elevators, through a series of corridors with remotely controlled locked doors at both ends, and then to a row of cubicles where visitors spoke to prisoners through plexiglass on telephones. One family shared a single chair among several adults and young children to visit a man in his 70s. Why do "administrative detainees" only get to visit family and friends through heavy plastic and without privacy? It's not about security; visiting hours were arranged according to security level, and these were the lowest-security inmates. An employee out front said, "It's always been like this."
The Montgomery Processing Center was holding some 1,500 prisoners in July. Carlos was in a pod with 80 other men. The GEO employees answering the phone and managing the sign-in sheets had been polite, but the guards treat the men as delinquentes, or criminals, Carlos told me. Carlos had entered the US legally more than a year earlier and had appeared for his court date. He wasn't accused of any crime. But they were all wearing prison uniforms and they were incarcerated, after all.
In defending an executive order "guaranteeing... protection against invasion" by "aliens," the deputy assistant attorney general avoided giving a clear answer when the judge asked him whether the President could simply order that any border-crosser be shot
In the visitation area, a guard told me it was impossible to give Carlos a lawyer's business card, so I held it up to the plexiglass. Carlos put the phone reciever down, using one hand to hold a crumpled paper napkin in place and the other to copy down the information with a short blunt pencil. Years ago an immigration prisoner in Louisiana cautioned me that reporters focus on stories of beatings and overlook the small indignities that make detention unbearable. Even when there is no "mistreatment," every aspect of the detention system is meant to dehumanize—dehumanization is both cause and consequence—and it works. Carlos decided against exercising his legal right to appeal because that would have meant staying inside even longer. He had met prisoners locked up for months even after agreeing to be deported. His only hesitation was that if Venezuela stopped accepting deportees again, he had no idea where the US would send him.
In late July, Carlos' phone access was cut off. His wife was used to speaking to him every day and now she was terrrified because she couldn't reach him. A legal assistant had explained that ICE does that within 24 hours of a scheduled removal. But for so-called "security" reasons again, ICE would not say where Carlos was or when he might actually be flown out. A volunteer advocate named Tom Cartwright of Witness at the Border monitors deportation flights, and he provided information about upcoming ICE removals to Venezuela. That gave Carlos' family some reassurance at least.
I'm only writing about Carlos because I happened to be there when he was arrested, and I'm hesitant because his case might give the wrong picture. Carlos has been treated unjustly. But unlike others, he was not sent by the US to be tortured in a Salvadoran prison. He wasn't sent to the "lawless enclave" of Guantánamo, or deposited in a country to which he has no connection, such as Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, or Uganda. He wasn't locked up for a week in a temporary "holding area" outside the immigration courtrooms in Manhattan, where a guard would squirt some water into prisoners' mouths when they were thirsty enough. He wasn't held in a sewage-flooded cell in Estancia, New Mexico. He wasn't sent to the new "soft-sided" immigration prison in the Florida Everglades, where guards chained a Nicaraguan asylum-seeker hand-and-foot outside in the sun for six hours without water—and then did the same to a Honduran man who protested.
But the same unchecked authority makes everything on this spectrum available to the government thugs and bureaucrats. That's why, in defending an executive order "guaranteeing... protection against invasion" by "aliens," the deputy assistant attorney general avoided giving a clear answer when the judge asked him whether the President could simply order that any border-crosser be shot.
*
Carlos' renewed work permit arrived at his home while he was detained. It didn't matter. In July, with no chance to pick up his possessions or tell his wife goodbye, he was moved from the Conroe detention center by bus some 400 miles south to an airport near the US-Mexico border. He was shackled—encadenado—at wrists, waist, and ankles for the bus ride and then, with some 300 others, for a flight from Harlingen, Texas, to Honduras. There US officials removed the waist and ankle chains, and they replaced the handcuffs with plastic flex-cuffs for the final trip to Venezuela. Altogether the transport took about 32 hours. Prisoners were given a cheese sandwich, an apple, and water.
Six weeks earlier, on the day Carlos was arrested, I had overheard two non-ICE federal employees chatting as they passed through the walkway to the garage where the Cuban's family had been screaming a few hours earlier. One man said casually, "I heard they were rounding people up."