By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a federal judge’s release order, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar welcomed Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, Adrian Conejo Arias, upon their return to Minneapolis from an ICE detention facility in Texas. They were accompanied by U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro. The family’s arrival in Minnesota on Sunday marks a significant development in their case.
Read the original article here
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reportedly requested expedited deportation proceedings against the family of Liam Conejo Ramos, a development that has sparked considerable concern and outrage. This move comes as the family was reportedly navigating the asylum process, engaging with what was intended to be a legal pathway to seek protection. The notion that they were attempting to follow the established legal procedures makes the subsequent request for expedited deportation particularly jarring.
This situation appears to be interpreted by many as a deliberate act of cruelty, specifically targeting a family that has gained media attention and support. The parallels drawn to past instances, such as the case of Abrego Garcia, highlight a perceived pattern of the administration fixating on and retaliating against individuals who become focal points in public discourse. The hope is expressed that accountability will eventually be sought for those involved, ensuring that claims of “following orders” are not an adequate defense against potentially harmful actions.
There’s a pervasive sentiment that America has become a significantly hateful nation, or perhaps that this underlying sentiment has always been present and is now being more overtly expressed. The idea is that any individual or family that manages to embarrass or challenge the current administration faces the full force of its power, with little regard for the human impact, even on a young child. This perceived vindictiveness is described as “evil” and a display of what some characterize as a “Nazi” mentality.
The motivation behind these expedited proceedings seems to stem from an unwillingness to admit fault or error. It’s viewed as a retaliatory measure designed to punish the DHS for being made to look bad, a pattern that allegedly continues until significant public pressure forces a change. This is occurring while the public is simultaneously being told that the administration is focused on targeting criminals, a stark contrast to the individuals being singled out in these instances.
The legal challenges faced by the Ramos family are seen as utterly despicable, with strong condemnations directed at those perceived to be orchestrating these actions. There’s an immediate desire to support the family, with inquiries about potential GoFundMe campaigns for their legal fees. The idea is that if a family is being singled out by what is described as a “corrupt administration seeking revenge,” then a collective pushback is not just fair but necessary.
This situation is not seen as a simple administrative process but as a deliberate act of vindictiveness. The cruelty, for many, appears to be for its own sake, leading to the grim assessment that the individuals in charge of the federal government are among the most morally bankrupt of our time. Those who support such actions are also viewed as being exceptionally bad people, contributing to a deeply concerning state of affairs.
The actions are often described as malicious and evil, raising questions about the stated priorities of the administration, particularly if they claim to be targeting the “worst of the worst.” The reality, as perceived, is that there is a greater focus on terrorizing individuals who bring negative publicity. A consistent pattern is observed where instances of alleged DHS misconduct that gain national attention are met with further attempts to victimize those already affected.
This is sadly presented as a common reality for asylum seekers across the United States, who are reportedly being denied due process and threatened with deportation to countries they have no connection to. The DHS is characterized as heartless, and these individuals are not seen as criminals but as people attempting to use the legal system to secure their safety. The pettiness and vindictiveness of the current leadership are highlighted, with the belief that the release of Liam and his father has triggered a desire for retaliation.
The prospect of deportation to Ecuador, the family’s home country, is mentioned, along with the possibility of seeking asylum in a third country. The thought of a five-year-old experiencing such trauma – detention, separation, and then being forced to relocate to an unfamiliar country – is deeply disturbing, compounding the initial trauma. The hope is strongly expressed that this family will not be deported.
The asylum system itself is acknowledged as being subject to abuse, but this is contrasted with the perceived lack of empathy, inability to follow the law, and a consistent refusal to admit mistakes by the government. Instead, there’s a tendency to double down on errors. A suggestion is made that court requests for expedited proceedings should be contingent on DHS compliance with other court orders and a willingness to wait their turn in the queue, especially given delays in processing habeas petitions.
There is a strong conviction that there are no “good Republicans” involved in these actions, and that the administration consistently demonstrates evil for its own sake. The call is for ordinary people to recognize the “bad guys” and that those who are not actively against these policies are implicitly complicit. The sentiment is that Republicans are simply “evil people” and that their power to cause harm needs to be physically removed.
The possibility of arguing “vindictive prosecution” in court is raised, as the current actions are seen as more about revenge for the family’s release than about any legitimate legal basis. The administration’s view of the asylum process is described as a non-legal avenue, except perhaps for specific groups, while simultaneously not changing the legal framework. There’s a belief that the current leadership views asylum seekers as fraudulent and mentally unstable.
The timing of these expedited proceedings is directly linked to the story going viral and the resulting public outrage. It’s noted that the established legal processes are no longer being followed, and that there is no longer a “legal way” for many. The broader agenda is perceived as stopping non-white individuals from entering the country, and even white individuals who don’t conform to a particular ideology, pointing to white supremacy as the underlying driver, with all other justifications serving as a smokescreen.
The intention behind these actions is seen as preventing any sign of hope for those considered “enemies,” and even if the Ramos family prevails, the goal is to instill fear that the government will go to extreme lengths. This is viewed as a form of “vice signaling,” where leaders demonstrate extreme cruelty to normalize subsequent acts of malice. A significant portion of the American population is perceived as either openly or secretly supporting this deliberate cruelty.
The support base for these actions is characterized as hateful, angry, and unintelligent. The argument is that any relaxation of the campaign of hate and cruelty would alienate this base, as hatred forms the foundation of MAGA and modern conservatism. The motivation of the “hateful” is seen as more powerful than that of the “kind,” evidenced by past election outcomes. The concept of “ethnic cleansing” is brought up, albeit questioning if there’s a “nice” way to achieve it.
The worst sin, from the perspective of those driving these policies, is making the Trump administration look weak. The Democrats are seen as complicit, failing to take meaningful action beyond rhetorical condemnation. The expectation is that any genuine punishment will not come from the political establishment, leaving the responsibility to the American people to force change. The current widespread “hoping” for change is deemed insufficient, as it’s not action-oriented.
The administration knows its base, composed of individuals who are easily influenced by authority figures, will not hold them accountable for failing to go after actual criminals. These individuals are described as religious extremists who have been conditioned to accept what they are told by right-wing politicians and extremist church leaders.