People Are "Disappearing" Since Trump Took Office. Here's What That Means.
Last month, Frizgeralth de Jesús Cornejo Pulgar, an asylum-seeker from Venezuela, was scheduled for a routine hearing in immigration court. But as Mother Jones reports, he never made it because he'd been whisked off without due process to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) along with 230 Venezuelan immigrants.
Since President Donald Trump began to carry out what he claimed would be the 'largest deportation' campaign in U.S. history earlier this year, there have been a number of cases where immigrants like Cornejo Pulgar have just 'disappeared.'
In January, Ricardo Prada Vásquez, a Venezuelan man working a delivery job and picking up food at a McDonald's in Detroit, Michigan, was deported and 'disappeared' to El Salvador after taking a wrong turn into Canada.
'Ricardo's story by itself is incredibly tragic — and we don't know how many Ricardos there are,' Ben Levey, a staff attorney with the National Immigrant Justice Center who tried to locate Prada Vásquez, told The New York Times.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ultimately confirmed to him that he had been deported but did not divulge his destination. After the abductions, families of men like Prada Vásquez search, but the names of their loved ones disappear from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's online detainee locator.
Could what's happening to immigrants under Trump be classified as 'enforced disappearances'? We spoke with academics and researchers who study how rogue states 'disappear' people.
First, what does it mean to 'disappear' a person?
According to the United Nations, an 'enforced disappearance' occurs when agents of the state (or groups acting with its authorization and support) arrest, detain, abduct or in any other way deprive a person of their liberty. The state then refuses to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned.
If you're wondering whether this is legal or illegal, it's actually neither. 'The inherent consequence of an enforced disappearance is that the person is placed outside the protection of the law, in a sort of legal limbo,' said Gabriella Citroni, an adjunct professor of international human rights law at the university of Milano-Bicocca in Milan, Italy, and a chair-rapporteur of UN expert group on enforced or involuntary disappearances.
Unlike other crimes under international law, such as torture, enforced disappearances were not prohibited by a universal legally binding instrument before a UN Convention came into effect in 2010.
Disappeared people frequently include political opponents, protesters, human rights defenders and community leaders, students and members of minorities, Citroni said.
Related: "We Don't Import Food": 31 Americans Who Are Just So, So Confused About Tariffs And US Trade
'Typically, enforced disappearances are used to suppress freedom of expression or religion, or legitimate civil strife demanding democracy, as well as against persons involved in the defense of the land, natural resources, and the environment, and to fight organized crime or counter terrorism,' she said.
Enforced disappearance functions as a tool of terror in two ways, said Oscar Lopez, a journalist based in Mexico City working on a book about the origins of forced disappearance during Mexico's 'Dirty War.'
'First, the victim is deprived of due process and often subjected to torture as well as the psychological hell of not knowing what's going to happen to them and possibly fearing for their life,' he told HuffPost.
Secondly, enforced disappearance forces families and communities into a state of painful uncertainty, Lopez said. 'They don't know whether their relative is alive or dead and toggle between desperate hope and unbearable despair.'
When disappearances occur frequently enough, they can leave entire communities in a state of terror, unsure of who might be taken next, Lopez said.
What has happened to disappeared people in the past?
What happens to people involuntarily disappeared depends 'very much on the context' in which they are taken, Lopez said. But generally speaking, if the person is kept alive, they're held in state custody for an indeterminate amount of time without the ability to communicate with their family or legal counsel ― aka they're 'held incommunicado.'
If the person is killed, their bodies are often disposed of in such a way that it becomes almost impossible for them to be found.
'This can mean burying them in unmarked graves, cremating their remains, or, as happened in Latin America, throwing their corpses out to sea,' he said.
Where have enforced disappearances happened before?
Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It
Lopez pointed to a few examples: In Argentina, during the military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983, an estimated 30,000 people were disappeared. In nearby Chile, more than 1,000 people went missing under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, while in Guatemala, some 45,000 people were forcibly disappeared during the country's civil war, which lasted from 1960 to 1996. In North Korea, instances of enforced disappearances and abductions date back to 1950.
'There are more recent instances of enforced disappearance, too,' he said. 'In Syria, for example, it's estimated that 136,000 people were disappeared under the Assad dictatorship.'
But enforced disappearances aren't always carried out directly by state agents. said Adam Isacson, who leads border and migration work at the Washington Office on Latin America.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been disappeared each by irregular groups in Colombia and Mexico, operating with the tacit permission or even assistance of government officials.
'Sometimes, as with the anti-communist paramilitaries in Colombia and death squads in 1980s El Salvador, the officials colluded with the groups out of some ideological alliance,' he said. 'Sometimes, as with corrupt Mexican cops who assist organized crime, they do it because they profit from it.'
Could what's happening in the U.S. now with immigrants be considered 'enforced disappearances'?
In spite of existing court orders and legal challenges, the Trump administration continues its deportation policy in El Salvador, in partnership with the county's President Nayib Bukele.
Venezuelan migrants have been targeted in particular for deportation, many on unproven allegations of gang affiliation. That said, Trump has also repeatedly said he's 'all for' looking for ways to detain U.S. citizens in foreign jails.
Should we be calling what's happening now 'forced disappearances'? A report released by the UN in April suggests yes.
The incommunicado detentions appeared to involve 'enforced disappearances, contrary to international law,' the report said.
'Many detainees were unaware of their destination, their families were not informed of their detention or removal, and the U.S. and Salvadoran authorities have not published the names or legal status of the detainees,' the UN experts wrote. 'Those imprisoned in El Salvador have been denied the right to communicate with and be visited by their family members.'
Isacson agrees that we should be calling a spade a spade here.
'The only difference between that and what was done in 1970s Chile or Argentina is that loved ones have more reason to believe that their relatives are still alive and haven't been killed,' he said.
But even that certainty is not complete, he said: 'Can you say with 100% confidence that Andry Hernandez ― the gay Venezuelan stylist that disappeared two months ago ― is still alive right now? He probably is, but you absolutely cannot guarantee that, and no one will confirm it.'
The raids and deportations have certainly struck fear into American communities ― another classic characteristic of enforced disappearances. The Trump administration has openly said that its goal is to try to make life so difficult for immigrants that they 'self-deport.'
Fear of being sent to a notorious El Salvador prison, where inmates never see the light of day, plays into that goal, said Rod Abouharb, an associate professor of international relations who researches forced disappearances at the University College London.
'These raids send out a chilling effect on those individuals who may be undocumented and even those who are legally in the United States: that they may be caught up in one of these raids, disappear into the prison system, and deported to a third country they may have no connection with,' he told HuffPost.
What can regular citizens do in response to enforced disappearances?
The best thing Americans can do to object to efforts like this is to draw as much attention as possible to individual cases, Lopez said.
'Whether that's by holding protests, creating online petitions or posting on social media, ensuring that a person who the government has tried to disappear remains visible and in the public discourse can be a powerful way to draw national attention to their plight and the plight of others like them.' he said.
Isacson thinks it's important to encourage senate and congressional Democrats who've stood up and made headlines, like Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.). Back in April, Van Hollen pushed for a face-to-face meeting with Kilmar Abrego Garcia ― a Salvadoran native living in Maryland who was deported in March to El Salvador despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution.
'Democrats will actually help themselves politically if they keep making a lot of righteous noise about this,' he said.
Americans should write to Republican moderates who seem quietly uncomfortable about forced disappearances and might be persuaded to action, Isacson said.
'All of us to stay vocal about this,' he said. 'Keep protesting, keep writing about it and keep calling your legislators.'This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
Also in In the News: People Can't Believe This "Disgusting" Donald Trump Jr. Post About Joe Biden's Cancer Diagnosis Is Real
Also in In the News: Republicans Are Calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim," And The Backlash From Women Is Too Good Not To Share
Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
New Englanders clash over Trump's sweeping health reforms
And he is not alone. In a recent Globe survey of 11 New Englanders across the political spectrum, all seven respondents who voted against Trump said they worry that basic health insurance and many vaccines will be harder to obtain for those who need them if the Big Beautiful Bill becomes law. The four respondents who voted for Trump, despite being unfamiliar with many of the legislation's specifics, said they support changes to health care programs to repair what some of them called a broken, bloated system. Advertisement The voters were surveyed as part of an ongoing Globe series on their views on the first year of the Trump administration, with previous installments centered on The cost of health care has been a major focus for Trump, who has said he wants to eliminate waste and fraud from programs such as Medicaid. The president has said he wants the legislation passed before July 4. But along with savings, Trantham noted, many experts predict that more Americans will end up uninsured if Trump's vision becomes the new landscape of national health care. Advertisement 'There will be more people who can't afford their medications. There'll be more people who avoid going to the doctor because they don't have the money,' said Trantham, who is an unenrolled voter and voted for former vice president Kamala Harris in 2024. 'And then they'll end up needing a higher level of medical care, which then puts a broad burden on the rest of us,' he added. Related : Trump's passed by the House, many The agency also predicted that 4 million people could see their access to food stamps reduced or eliminated. In addition to benefit cuts, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill would increase the US deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And on Thursday, Joann Flaminio, 69, a retired Democrat from Providence, said she is concerned that few people are aware of the myriad dangers tucked into the sprawling bill. 'The devil really is in the details. And one of the proposals in the Big Beautiful Bill — that requires Medicaid recipients to re-enroll every six months — is a draconian measure designed to deny services to those most in need,' said Flaminio, who served as retirement administrator for the state of Rhode Island. Advertisement 'My sister was on Medicaid in the final years of her life, and I know what the application process is like in order to get somebody approved. Many people hire a lawyer in order to do that, but it can be arduous, and it certainly is,' she added. The president's bill also would impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, from ages 19 to 64, who would need to work at least 80 hours per month if they did not qualify for exemptions. From her experience, Flaminio said, linking benefits to work requirements is impractical. 'We tried to mandate work requirements ... for those people who are on disability benefits,' Flaminio said. 'And I would say, for the most part, it's a waste of time and effort. The vast majority of recipients, an estimated 96 percent, cannot work, which is the reason why they apply for Medicaid in the first place.' But for the survey's Trump supporters, trimming the Medicaid rolls is worthwhile if it rids the system of fraud and abuse. Seth Sole-Robertson, a 45-year-old Republican from Medway, was asked if Medicaid cuts concern him. 'I'd be concerned if I was an illegal alien,' Sole-Robertson answered, 'and I'd be concerned if I were committing fraud.' The goal is to strip benefits from 'people who are ineligible or taking it in two different states,' said Sole-Robertson, who owns a marine repair business. 'There's lots of hoopla or fake news about what's going on with Medicaid.' Karen Sysyn, 54, an unenrolled Trump supporter from Londonderry, N.H., said she wasn't sure where the bill was headed or what was in it. 'I hear a lot of rumors that they're looking at cutting Social Security and disability and stuff like that,' she said. Advertisement If people are able to work, taxpayers should not bear their burden, said Sysyn, who is searching for work after losing her job as a housing inspector. But if people are genuinely in need of support from Social Security or Medicare, they should receive support, she added. Another unenrolled Trump supporter, 56-year-old Brian Jankins of Sutton, was asked what he knew about the bill. 'Full disclosure, very little,' said Jankins, who works in banking. However, he added, 'our current health care system is broken and dysfunctional ... I'm not versed in what this bill does to address that, but it is broken.' Related : Respondents' opinions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, also were sharply divided, with Trump supporters endorsing his stance against vaccines, among other initiatives, and the president's opponents saying Kennedy was endangering lives. 'I think more Americans are going to die under some of the changes that he's making around vaccinations,' said Vanessa Coppola, a 42-year-old Democrat from North Yarmouth, Maine. Over the administration's first five months, Kennedy became a lightning rod for controversy because of his antivaccine stance, his references to autism as a preventable disease, and his ouster and replacement of the entire immunization advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coppola, a job coach and consultant, is particularly worried about Kennedy's proposal to eliminate the COVID vaccine recommendation for healthy pregnant women. Those vaccinations provide coverage for newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to respiratory disease, she said. Anand Sharma, 53, a Democrat from Shrewsbury and electrical engineer, called the rolling drama at the Department of Health and Human Services part of 'the chaos [that] is everywhere right now.' Advertisement And Justina Perry, a 37-year-old Democrat from New Bedford, denounced Kennedy's antivaccine agenda. 'Viruses are going to love this,' said Perry, who runs a physical therapy clinic. 'They're going to be able to spread and spread, and they win in this situation because we're pulling back vaccine access. So the only one who should be excited about this is a virus.' But Darryll White, an unenrolled Trump voter from Skowhegan, Maine, supports Kennedy's efforts to change government guidance on vaccines. Kennedy's work is 'a long-haul scenario — to make America healthy again,' said White, 66, who added that efforts by the news media to 'demonize' the secretary have made his job harder. 'People have to understand that Robert Kennedy is under intense pressure,' added White, the director of a nonprofit community park. White said he supports Kennedy's proposal to upend the government's vaccine guidance. 'That's exactly what needs to happen,' said White, who believed the government was not transparent during the pandemic about possible adverse effects of the COVID vaccine. The respondents were sharply divided yet again about the administration's drastic cuts in medical research grants, and those views aligned with whether they had voted for the president. The cuts have had an outsize effect on universities and other research institutions in the Boston area, particularly at Harvard University, where the government has canceled about $2.6 billion in awarded grants. 'He's cutting off his nose to spite his face,' Rosemary Shea, 62, an unenrolled voter from Hampton, N.H., said of Trump, who she voted against. 'I mean, Harvard is not just doing this research for themselves. They're doing it for the world.' Advertisement 'These universities are doing great research for diseases that are still out there that we have not cracked yet — Parkinson's, cancer, all different types of cancers," Shea added. 'He's just decided 'nope.' And I haven't even heard a logical explanation for it.' Sole-Robertson, the Medway Republican, offered a sharply different take on the government's role in funding medical research. 'A lot of this needs to be shifted back to private industry and raising funds in the private sector,' he said. 'I think a lot of it is just pure nonsense.' Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at
