By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a hospitalization for respiratory issues, two-month-old Juan Nicolás and his family were deported to Mexico by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This action occurred after the infant spent over three weeks in a Texas detention center, sparking condemnation from Representative Joaquin Castro, who has been actively trying to secure the family’s release. The family, reportedly deported with only $190, is now being tracked to ensure their safety, particularly Juan’s precarious health which includes bronchitis. The article highlights concerns about conditions within ICE detention facilities, including recent measles outbreaks and inadequate care for sick children.
Read the original article here
The recent deportation of a two-month-old named Juan Nicolás by ICE, occurring mere hours after he was hospitalized, has understandably ignited a firestorm of outrage and disbelief. This deeply disturbing event raises profound questions about the humanity and moral compass of those involved. The sheer fact that a newborn, clearly in a vulnerable state requiring medical attention, could be subjected to such a drastic and immediate removal from the country is difficult to comprehend. It strikes at the core of what many consider basic human decency, especially when dealing with infants.
One of the most immediate and pressing questions that arises is about Juan Nicolás’s citizenship status. Was he born in the United States? If so, he would inherently be a U.S. citizen. The notion that a citizen, even a very young one, could be deported is alarming and points towards a severe breakdown in established legal and ethical procedures. The assertion that he is a U.S. citizen, if true, makes this deportation all the more egregious, bordering on the unthinkable.
The sentiment that ICE agents in this instance are acting as “evil people” is a strong indictment, reflecting the deep emotional response this event has provoked. Many find it difficult to reconcile such an action with any semblance of justice or compassion. The suggestion that resources might be better directed towards prosecuting child predators within America, rather than focusing on such a minuscule and defenseless individual, highlights a perceived misallocation of priorities and a disturbing lack of focus on genuinely harmful elements within society.
There’s a palpable sense that America’s struggle with child exploitation is a far more significant and pressing issue than the deportation of an infant. The call to jail all pedophiles in the country, presented as a way to safeguard the future generation, underscores a deep-seated concern for the well-being of children. This perspective suggests that a truly moral and legally sound administration would prioritize protecting its own vulnerable citizens from such heinous crimes.
The current administration’s handling of this situation, as described, appears to lack both moral and legal standing in the eyes of many. The description of the deportation as a “crime against humanity” and “definitely evil” speaks to the extreme level of revulsion felt by those witnessing or hearing about it. There’s a chilling implication that the swift deportation was a measure to avoid negative publicity that might arise from a tragedy befalling a sick infant while in custody, suggesting a calculated move to prevent bad press rather than a genuine concern for the child’s well-being or due process.
The stark contrast drawn between the “pro-life” stance and the actions taken here is particularly pointed. It raises questions about the selective application of moral principles, suggesting that the concern for life might end once a child is born and enters the immigration system, particularly for marginalized communities. The expression of profound shock, “Oh my fucking god…,” captures the incredulous disbelief that such an event could occur.
The call for “Nuremberg trials for ICE agents” after the current administration is out of power reflects the deep-seated belief that these actions are not merely policy missteps but systematic abuses that warrant severe accountability. The characterization of supporters of such policies as “utter psychopaths” and the grouping of the Republican party with “sociopaths” indicates an extreme polarization and a sense of moral outrage directed at specific political factions perceived as responsible.
A particularly damning accusation suggests that Republicans are responsible due to a “quota of arrests” that must be met, leading to arbitrary detentions and deportations, even of the vulnerable. This paints a picture of a system driven by profit and punitive quotas, where the well-being of individuals, their vulnerability, or even their citizenship status are secondary to meeting predetermined metrics. The phrase “literal kidnapping for profit” highlights the perceived malicious intent behind these actions.
The sarcastic comparisons between deporting a two-month-old and bringing in other individuals, coupled with the exclamation “MURICA!”, are used to underscore the perceived absurdity and hypocrisy of the situation. The repeated calls for “Nuremberg 2.0” emphasize the desire for accountability and justice on a grand scale for what are seen as grave human rights violations. The labeling of such actions as “MAGA” and “conservatism in action” aims to link these policies directly to a particular political ideology.
The assertion that Americans are unable to stop their government from “raping children and deporting 2 month olds” is a stark and disturbing critique of the nation’s current state. The idea that this behavior is “mighty monstrous” is a clear indictment. The calls to “Abolish ICE and DHS” stem from this deep dissatisfaction and the belief that these organizations are fundamentally flawed and harmful.
The bitter sarcasm regarding a “drug dealing, America murdering 2-month-old” being deported is meant to highlight the ridiculousness of the charges or assumptions that might be leveled against such a young child to justify their deportation. It underscores the perceived cruelty inherent in the situation. The expectation that ICE agents and others involved will face “prison sentences” reflects the intensity of the public’s anger and desire for retribution. The thought that someone might feel their “American job is safe now that this 2 month old is gone” is presented as a chilling commentary on the perceived priorities of some within the system.
The inability to “understand the mentality” behind such actions is a common refrain, suggesting a disconnect from basic empathy and reason. The hope for eternal damnation for those responsible, “I hope hell is real so there assholes can roast in it,” is a testament to the depth of anger and the feeling of profound injustice. The desire for this news to be widely disseminated, particularly in regions like South Texas, suggests a hope for greater public awareness and outcry.
The comparison of these actions to the “modern SS” is a severe accusation, evoking the atrocities of the past and suggesting a horrifying continuity of state-sponsored cruelty. The speculation about the infant being a “murderer or rapist” and “the worst of the worst” is clearly meant sarcastically, highlighting the absurdity of any potential justification for deporting an infant. The belief that “Most if not all maga will support this” indicates a perception of widespread support for such harsh and inhumane policies within certain political circles.
The statement that this is “part of the reason why we protest; for those who can’t” emphasizes the role of activism in speaking out against perceived injustices. The incredulity expressed, “what wrong with your country,” reflects a deep concern for the direction the nation is heading. The repeated questions about who would ignore a sick baby, place an infant in a “jail camp,” or abandon a family with a critically ill baby in an unfamiliar city paint a grim picture of deliberate cruelty.
The confirmation that this baby is a “verified US CITIZEN” is a critical piece of information that amplifies the outrage. The term “Trafficked” is used to reframe the situation, suggesting a more sinister interpretation of what occurred. The question “This is winning? Being great again?” directly challenges the political slogans often associated with harsh immigration policies. The appearance of “Stephen Miller” in connection to these events, described as a “smirking” and “indescribable as human” figure, points to a specific individual perceived as a driving force behind such policies.
The fate of the parents and the conditions of their deportation are also raised, with concerns about them being “flown out in chains” mirroring other reported incidents. The feeling of sickness, disgust, and moral wrongness is palpable. The acknowledgment that these actions are happening “in my name, in your name, with our tax dollars” serves as a stark reminder of collective responsibility and the infuriating reality of how public funds are being used. The observation that these actions are “beyond justification by any moral principles” and will likely be rationalized by some, particularly those professing religious beliefs, highlights the perceived hypocrisy.
The dismissive tone towards any justification, such as “violent crimes” or the idea that this mother is “the worst of the worst,” underscores the belief that no crime could possibly warrant such treatment of an infant. The use of sarcasm to question the reality of these events, especially when juxtaposed with claims of only going after “violent criminals and rapists,” emphasizes the perceived disconnect between rhetoric and reality. The question, “Is there no limit to what those thugs will do?” encapsulates the feeling of helplessness and outrage.
The characterization of this as “Fascist America” is a severe indictment of the political climate. The assertion that this is not what a “Christian Nation would do,” especially with the “/s” indicating sarcasm, points to a perceived betrayal of religious and moral values. The sarcastic “Thank goodness! I can’t imagine the terror and unbridled horror little Juan could bring upon this complete guiltless and safe nation” highlights the absurdity of any perceived threat posed by an infant. The reference to a “Poopy Diaper Rebellion” is a darkly humorous, albeit disturbing, attempt to mock any perceived justification for such extreme measures. The notion that he was “only doing baby crimes” further amplifies the ridicule of the situation.
Finally, the description of ICE, CBP, and DHS as “monsters,” “bootlicking, murderous, anti-American traitorous Nazi monsters,” and the call for their complete dismantling and prosecution of leadership and officers who violated laws and constitutional rights, represents the apex of the condemnation. This sentiment reflects a profound loss of faith in these institutions and a demand for radical accountability for actions that are seen as fundamentally inhumane and un-American. The contrast between deporting “rapists and murderers” and deporting “children and mothers” serves as a final, damning indictment of the perceived priorities and moral bankruptcy of the system.