People Are "Disappearing" Since Trump Took Office. Here's What That Means.
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


Miami Herald
26 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Why haven't Epstein files been released? Most Americans agree on answer, poll finds
Why has the government withheld the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files? Most Americans suspect it's because a high-profile figure appears in them, according to new polling. In the latest YouGov poll, 53% of respondents said they believe certain documents related to Epstein remain sealed because President Donald Trump is named in them. In contrast, 21% think this is not the reason, and 25% said they weren't sure. Most Democrats and independents — 84% and 53% — think the files haven't been released because Trump is involved, while just 20% of Republicans think the same. The survey comes as controversy surrounding Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in a New York jail in 2019, continues to dog the Trump administration. It began in early July, when the Department of Justice released a memo concluding that no Epstein 'client list' existed, and that there was not sufficient evidence to charge third parties. As a result, most Americans concluded that a cover-up had taken place, according to a previous YouGov poll. Since then, new details have emerged about the president's relationship with Epstein, who once called Trump his 'closest friend' and was photographed at events with him in the 1990s and early 2000s. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal alleged that Trump had penned a 'bawdy' birthday letter to Epstein in 2003. And, on July 23, the outlet reported that DOJ officials told the president he was named in the Epstein files, though they noted 'being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing.' In response, Trump and White House officials labeled both stories as 'fake,' and Trump has sued the newspaper's publisher for defamation. He's also said he is being subject to 'a witch hunt.' However, most Americans are skeptical of the president's denouncements. In the latest poll — which surveyed 4,833 U.S. adults on July 24 — 61% of respondents said they believe Trump's name appears in the Epstein files. Just 12% said they don't believe this, and 28% said they weren't sure. On this question, another partisan divide emerged. Most Democrats and independents — 86% and 60% — said they think the president's name is included in the Epstein files, while just 34% of Republicans said the same. But, while most Americans believe Trump is listed in the files, less than half, 45%, believe he was 'involved in crimes allegedly committed by Jeffrey Epstein.' A smaller share, 28%, said they think he was not involved in criminal activity, and 27% said they were not sure, according to the poll, which has a margin of error of 1.7 percentage points. The overwhelming majority of Democrats, 77%, believe the president was implicated in crimes purportedly committed by Epstein, while 63% of Republicans said he was not. Independents were more split, with 45% saying he was involved, and 21% saying he was not. The poll was released the same day that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche is set to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate, who was convicted on sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida. 'If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in a statement. The meeting comes after Trump instructed the Department of Justice to release grand jury testimony related to Epstein, though he noted, 'nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request.'


Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Lawyers for Venezuelan migrants seek their return to U.S. after prison release
A lawyer for scores of Venezuelan migrants freed last week from a Salvadoran prison and returned to their home country told a federal judge Thursday that the Trump administration should allow them back into the United States. But the Justice Department did not commit to doing so, telling Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington that the administration would permit their return 'if there is a lawful order.'


Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
DOGE prepares to literally drain the swamp by banishing Biden's ‘overreaching' water rule
EXCLUSIVE: After scoring a victory in her effort to undo the Biden-era expansion of clean water regulations that led to outrage from farmers and homesteaders, Senate DOGE Chairwoman Joni Ernst put forward permanent policy exclusions Thursday to prevent future Democratic administrations from "overreach." "If you try to navigate a wastewater treatment pool, you'll be up a creek without a paddle," Ernst, R-Iowa, said, mocking what she and many heartland landowners see as federal overreach into clearly unnavigable waters. Rainwater pools, farm runoff, small property ponds, and other ephemeral or seasonal water bodies – like prairie potholes and temporary channels – were suddenly subject to federal regulation, not local farmers or landowners. "WOTUS regulatory uncertainty has threatened the livelihoods of hardworking Iowa farmers, small businesses, and landowners for far too long and I was thrilled to join EPA Administrator (Lee) Zeldin in announcing that the Trump administration is revising this misguided and harmful regulatory expansion," Ernst told Fox News Digital, noting her announcement Thursday builds on an effort announced in March by the EPA that opened the door to such revisions. Ernst has called the original Biden and Obama expansions of the law disastrous and "overreach" that continue the trend of Democrats "mounting unnecessary environmental regulations to overwhelm the commonsense voice of hardworking Americans." Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig said Ernst's "CLEAR Waters Act" will provide necessary clarity and consistency to such "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) regulations. Naig said it should "end the constant policy whiplash that changes with each new administration." "It's a commonsense approach that brings certainty to those who are working every day to responsibly manage our land and water." A 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA stripped some of the Biden administration's control via their "significant nexus" test of waterway categorization. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 9-0 majority opinion that the EPA had ordered Idaho landowners Michael and Chantell Sackett to restore a wetland where they were building a home or pay $40,000 per day in penalties. Alito said the EPA had considered the area a wetland because "they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake; a navigable intrastate lake." "The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'" That decision enraged Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who said the "MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country's environmental laws." "Make no mistake – this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands," he warned at the time.