In this February article, I outline a theory that may sound extreme on first read—but the purpose here is **mechanism discovery**, not sensationalism. The thesis is simple: if a government wanted to build an **extrajudicial containment pipeline** for dangerous actors inside its own borders, the cleanest way to do it would be to package the entire infrastructure as “immigration enforcement,” because immigration enforcement is one of the few domains where the public already tolerates **large-scale detention**, **accelerated custody decisions**, **opaque transfers**, and **civil-procedural ambiguity**.
This is not an accusation claiming insider proof. It is a **feasibility model**—a map of what becomes possible when you combine (1) elastic terrorism definitions, (2) modern surveillance and sentiment classification, (3) privatized transport and detention contracting, and (4) offshore detention logic that weakens the visibility and friction of domestic constitutional protections. Some of what follows may be **overreach**. I am explicitly labeling it as such. However, it remains worth imagining, because imagining the full operational envelope of state power is often the difference between being protected by law and being surprised by what law quietly permits.
---
* [REMOVE: Extraterritorial Containment of Domestic Extremists](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/x.html)
* [American Citizens: Trump, Guantánamo, El Salvador, DHS Facilities, and Air Transport](https://bryant-mcgill.blogspot.com/2025/05/american-citizens-trump-guantanamo-el.html)
---
## Date-Locked Note (≤ 2/1/25): What This Paper Is—and Is Not
This paper is **not** a “breaking news” report. It is an **architecture hypothesis**: a projection of how detention systems can be repurposed under political cover and bureaucratic ambiguity. It treats public rhetoric, historical precedent, and logistics constraints the way engineers treat constraints in a design problem: if you want outcome X, which channels make X achievable without triggering system failure (public backlash, judicial intervention, institutional refusal)?
Where I make hard claims, I state them plainly. Where I speculate, I mark the speculation. The purpose of this is not to persuade you emotionally; it is to show you the **shape of a machine** that can exist in modern governance—especially in the post-9/11 ecosystem where “national security” has become a universal solvent.
**The Terrorism Confinement Center is a maximum security prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The prison was built in late 2022.**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Confinement_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Confinement_Center)
### **Summary**
Trump's Guantánamo 2.0 / El Salvador TCC: Putting Hate on "ICE" with a Quiet Purge of Domestic Extremists (Global X / CECOT): This paper outlines a **hypothetical** domestic counterinsurgency framework operating under the **cover** of border enforcement. Building on legacies such as FBI COINTELPRO, WWII internment, and Guantánamo-era legal loopholes, it traces how social provocation and digital surveillance—via DHS, SPLC data streams, and predictive analytics firms—could identify and target extremist actors. Enabled by broad post-9/11 authorities and executive policy ambiguity, this system could permit prolonged detention under elastic definitions of terrorism. The architecture potentially extends beyond Guantánamo to the **Terrorism Confinement Center (TCC)** in **Tecoluca, El Salvador**, a maximum-security site inaugurated in 2022. Facilitated by **Global Crossing Airlines (Global X Air)**—a contractor used for ICE-related deportation operations—this network may include transfers across Latin America. Key logistical and financial linkages may also reach into Canada, where figures such as **Chris Jamroz**, connected to the **Royal Ontario Museum** and **York University**, appear adjacent to the ecosystem of aviation logistics intersecting with deportation infrastructure.
I want to be direct: portions of this synthesis are **high inference**. That does not make them useless. It makes them the appropriate object of scrutiny—because high-inference hypotheses are exactly how you model systems whose internal records are inaccessible, while their external outputs (detention expansion, transportation contracting, rhetoric shifts, offshore facility utilization) remain visible.
## **Staging Grounds: From Guantánamo to Tecoluca**
Contrary to the comfortable public fiction that offshore detention was a one-time post-9/11 aberration, **Guantánamo Bay** should be understood as a *prototype*—a legal and logistical workshop for holding bodies at distance from the full force of domestic judicial oversight. GTMO did not simply create a facility. It created a **jurisdictional technique**: the ability to relocate human beings into a governance zone where normal assumptions about rights, timelines, evidentiary burdens, and visibility weaken.
The Terrorism Confinement Center (TCC) in Tecoluca, El Salvador—publicly framed as a solution to gang violence—appears, at minimum, structurally compatible with that same technique. Its scale, physical design, and political context make it functionally useful as a **high-capacity offshoring endpoint** in a hemispheric enforcement pipeline. Whether or not it is being used for that purpose is the claim this paper does *not* pretend to prove. The argument is simpler: *if you wanted such an endpoint, this is what it would look like.*
Guantánamo served not only as a detention site but as an **ontological incubator**: a prototype for how to hold bodies indefinitely without conventional rights, how to bypass due process under the guise of national security, and how to rebrand ideological opposition as terrorism. What was once cloaked in the language of emergency and exceptionalism can become bureaucratically normalized. The more this normalization spreads, the less “impossible” it becomes for the same logic to be applied inward—toward citizens—under new labels and new cover stories.
## **Logistical Cartographies of Rendition and Transfer**
The infrastructure enabling a transnational enforcement regime is rarely cinematic. It is paperwork, contracts, scheduling systems, charter flight manifests, custody transfer procedures, and jurisdictional ambiguity. If you want to move people without friction, you build **quiet logistics**: private contracting, decentralized routing, and limited transparency.
Central to the plausibility of any offshore pipeline is aviation. **Global Crossing Airlines Group Inc. (Global X Air)** is a real actor in the deportation ecosystem. That alone does not imply wrongdoing. But it does demonstrate that the transport layer exists: a mechanism to move large numbers of people across borders without the optics of military rendition, and without the public automatically reading the act as extraordinary. That matters because the transport layer is where “domestic” can become “foreign,” and where “custody” becomes “disappearance” from the public’s line of sight.
The more speculative claim—possibly overreach, but worth imagining—is that once such a transport layer exists at scale, the question becomes less “can this be done?” and more “what categories could be quietly routed through it if the political will appeared?” That is how systems drift. Not through a single executive signature, but through an accumulation of capability until the only remaining barrier is narrative.
### **Introduction: One of the Most Brilliant Cover Tactics in Modern U.S. History**
**Guantánamo is being prepared for domestic extremists.** That sentence reads like a provocation. I understand that. But treat it as a hypothesis about **jurisdictional design**, not as a claim of leaked documents. The idea is that immigration enforcement—because it already legitimizes mass detention and removal—can function as a cover layer for something else: the methodical identification and containment of **domestic violent extremists**, including factions whose rhetoric and self-expression make them easy to map.
Studies on coded racial appeals and “dog whistle” politics show that strategic ambiguity can act as a signal that attracts certain audiences. That audience, emboldened, then speaks louder, organizes more visibly, and creates a thicker trail of online and offline data. A cynical but operationally plausible interpretation is that such signaling has a dual utility: it energizes a base while simultaneously making the most dangerous fringe **more legible** to surveillance systems and law enforcement targeting.
What looks like incoherent politics can sometimes function as a **sorting mechanism**—and sorting mechanisms are what states need before they can apply differentiated force.
What appears to be a new development—the existence of an offshore facility like El Salvador’s TCC that is designed for high-volume control—may therefore be legible as a downstream affordance in the same global pattern: export the most extreme containment practices to places where rights friction is lower, then keep your own domestic system “clean” and legally insulated.
This is the central wager: that **border enforcement rhetoric** can become the mask for **domestic containment capacity**, because it generates the public consent needed to build the cage before deciding who else might go inside it.
---
#### READ: [Never Again & Post-War Gamification: How Exclusionary Politics Always Turns on Its Own Supporters](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/02/never-again-post-war-gamification-how.html)
* [Don't Believe Every Bombed Building You See: Inside the Precision of Modern Kill Chains](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/04/dont-believe-every-bombed-building-you.html)
* [Trump's Guantánamo 2.0 / El Salvador TCC: A Quiet Purge of Domestic Extremists — Global X / CECOT](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/02/trumps-guantanamo-20-quiet-purge-of.html)
* [Preventing the Next Memetic Pandemic: A Global Alliance of Science Eliminating Global Atrocities](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2024/12/preventing-next-memetic-pandemic-global.html)
* [Society's Immune System: Evaluating Extremist Emboldenment by High-Profile Figures](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/01/evaluating-hypothesis-of-deliberate.html)
* [Gamification: Why Everything Feels Like a Crisis: How to Think Clearly in a World That Wants You Outraged](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/03/why-everything-feels-like-crisis-how-to.html)
* [CZI: Center for Zoonotic Infections / CDC / Pathogens, Public Health, Surveillance Systems](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2024/09/center-for-zoonotic-infections-cdc.html)
* [The Role of Two-Way Human Cosmological Observatories in Climate Change, Life Extension, Mental Illness, and Genomics](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-role-of-two-way-human-cosmological.html)
---
## Immigration Rhetoric May Mask a Broader Strategy to Contain Domestic Extremism
In contemporary American politics, discourse surrounding immigration has attained a uniquely charged resonance. Former President Donald Trump’s bombastic stance on “illegal aliens” has consistently dominated headlines, fueling tense debates and catalyzing a string of policy initiatives. At first glance, these policies appear singularly focused on the southern border, border-wall construction, detention facilities, and other high-profile measures intended to halt undocumented migrants. Yet, when we peel back the surface layer, a provocative theory emerges—one suggesting that these immigration tactics could function as a camouflaged sweep against domestic violent extremists, racists, antisemites, and militant factions of the far right.
This hypothesis posits a feint: a public-facing “border crisis” narrative that builds detention infrastructure and broad custody latitude, while the true long-term leverage is the ability to repurpose that infrastructure inward. This is, admittedly, an aggressive hypothesis. It may be overreach. But it is worth imagining because it matches the underlying logic of how power scales in modern bureaucracies: first you build the channel, then you expand the category of what can flow through it.
One of the most striking manifestations of this potential downstream architecture is El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (TCC), inaugurated in 2022. Publicly framed as a gang-suppression tool, it nevertheless appears structurally compatible with a different use-case: a hemispheric holding site for high-risk detainees whose confinement benefits from low oversight, high capacity, and the political insulation of being “elsewhere.” The existence of ICE-linked deportation flights and private aviation contracting strengthens the plausibility of such routing, because the state no longer needs to invent a new mechanism—it only needs to **reinterpret** an existing one.
### The Emergence of an Overarching Strategy
The central puzzle is how the fervor around “illegal immigrants” could serve as a proxy for identifying and isolating extremist threats inside the country. The logic unfolds through converging components: psychological operations and self-revelation dynamics, historical precedents for containment, and the modern instruments of data-driven surveillance and classification.
#### Psychological Maneuvers and the “Dog Whistle” Phenomenon
Trump’s public statements, tweets, and executive orders have frequently been described as dog whistles—coded language that can be interpreted as racially or ethnically charged while simultaneously emboldening certain audiences harboring extremist or conspiratorial views. That emboldenment is not merely social. It is operationally useful to any surveillance ecosystem: the more loudly an extremist faction self-advertises, the easier it is to map networks, identify leadership nodes, and attach digital identity trails to real-world coordinates.
This is the self-revelation loop: power does not always need to force people into the open. It can create conditions where they volunteer their own trace.
#### Historical Parallels in Domestic Containment
The core principle—encouraging radical actors to surface so they can be cataloged—has precedent in American history, including COINTELPRO-era infiltration and disruption logic. The targets have shifted across decades. The method persists: intelligence ecosystems prefer enemies who self-identify.
### Guantánamo Bay: The Surprising Linchpin
Guantánamo Bay (GTMO) remains the most visible American artifact of extrajudicial containment. Its remote location, security infrastructure, and exceptional legal status make it a ready-made template for what governance looks like when it “needs” to hold bodies outside ordinary procedural limits.
The hypothesis presented here is that GTMO can function as dual-use infrastructure. Publicly, it can be rhetorically justified as handling “high-risk migrants” and “dangerous criminal aliens.” Structurally, it remains suited for anyone whose custody the state wants maximally insulated from public oversight.
Concrete indicators of possible repurposing include:
* Policy language referencing “high-risk detainees” and capacity expansion.
* Administrative ambiguity about who qualifies as a national security threat.
* Apparent paradoxes where capacity-building continues regardless of obvious shifts in conventional “need.”
None of these are proof. They are indicators of **optionality**—and optionality is what matters in system design.
### Trump’s Shifting Relationship with the Far Right
To those who find this theory plausible, Trump’s posture toward extremist elements can be interpreted as strategically ambiguous. Publicly, he courted the energy of fringe groups. Behind that, however, the national security apparatus has its own continuity of interest: it monitors, maps, and contains threats regardless of party aesthetics.
The overreach claim—worth imagining, but not asserted as fact—is that populist leadership can function as a kind of “pheromone trail,” drawing unstable factions into a higher visibility state. If those factions later become inconvenient, the very apparatus they celebrated becomes the mechanism of removal. That is one of history’s recurring ironies: movements that demand expanded force often end up inside the force they empowered.
### Spotlight on Long-Term Efforts: From the Abraham Accords to the Southern Poverty Law Center
Domestic containment systems are rarely built from scratch. They are assembled from existing institutional streams: domestic extremism monitoring by nonprofits and watchdog organizations, interagency task forces, and federal prevention frameworks. The SPLC’s long-running documentation of extremist groups functions, at minimum, as a public-facing map of ideological threat ecosystems.
One does not need to claim conspiracy to see how such mapping becomes useful to government: databases do not have to be secret to be operational. The modern state consumes public data, private data, and open-source data as raw material, and then the question becomes how—and where—that material can be acted upon with minimal friction.
### Advanced Data Aggregation and Profiling
An underappreciated element in modern governance is that the cost of classification has collapsed. When political rhetoric triggers extremist signaling, the surveillance environment can rapidly cluster participants, map proximity relationships, and build probabilistic risk profiles. The more dramatic the rhetoric, the richer the signal becomes.
This creates a chilling paradox: the loudest extremists may be providing the state with their own indexing metadata.
### Operational Logistics: Layering on the Cover
One of the most fascinating aspects of this theory is the logistical choreography required to detain large numbers of extremists without provoking maximal backlash. The answer is layered cover tactics:
1. **Amplify Public Anxiety Over Illegal Immigration**
News cycles, political rallies, and social media campaigns would perpetually focus on an “alien invasion” narrative, stoking fears and justifying detention expansion.
2. **Emphasize Existing Laws and Executive Orders**
Broadly worded national security and immigration actions enable flexible enforcement categories.
3. **Incremental Capacity Building**
The public is told “beds are needed,” while the deeper function is optionality.
4. **Synchronize Public and Private Databases**
Public watchdog mapping and private analytics can feed operational targeting.
5. **Execute in Waves**
Discreet phased operations avoid the optics of a single mass sweep.
6. **Deploy Covert Rendition Channels Through Civilian Airlines**
ICE-chartered flights allow silent custody transfer under the cover of deportation.
7. **Integrate International Detention Infrastructure**
Offshore facilities provide a terminus that weakens oversight and legal friction.
### Potential Indicators of the Strategy
Direct proof would be difficult to extract without insider disclosure. But observable indicators could include:
* Capacity expansions outpacing conventional need.
* Quiet disappearances or silencing of extremist influencers.
* A rhetorical broadening from “illegal aliens” toward “internal threats.”
* Abrupt quietness from previously loud organizations.
### Tie-Ins with Broader Geopolitics
A final overlay is that domestic containment can align with foreign policy optics: the U.S. benefits diplomatically when it can claim to be suppressing extremist violence at home while maintaining a hard posture abroad. Whether or not any administration intends such alignment, the machine itself can drift toward it because it rewards governance with a narrative of security and stability.
### A Calculated Covert Front
Within the realm of speculative political strategy, the notion that immigration crackdowns can operate as a smokescreen for domestic containment carries a certain elegance. It is not elegance in morality. It is elegance in systems engineering: border enforcement is the one public narrative that reliably produces consent for detention expansion while distracting from the deeper structural consequence—an enlarged custody pipeline that can be repurposed.
The ultimate claim here is not “this is definitely happening.” The claim is: **this is what becomes possible** when you build a detention machine large enough, vague enough, and offshore-capable enough. And if such a machine exists, history suggests it will eventually be used in ways the public did not anticipate.
### Concluding Reflections
This theory of immigration as cover for a domestic extremism crackdown cannot be proven from the outside without disclosure. But it can be evaluated as a feasibility model by asking: do the legal instruments exist, do the logistics exist, does the narrative cover exist, and do the political incentives exist?
If the answer is yes, then the only remaining uncertainty is not capability—it is timing, will, and classification drift.
## **Step-by-Step Breakdown: How Immigration Rhetoric Masks a Domestic Extremism Crackdown**
For those who don’t want to read the full article, here is a **step-by-step breakdown** of how this operation works—from the creation of cover stories to the final round-up of domestic extremists. For over a decade, the U.S. government has been collecting and analyzing vast amounts of **public health, social behavior, and sentiment data**, ostensibly for medical and epidemiological research. But behind the surface, these same data streams—processed through high-performance computing centers like **Argonne’s Aurora supercomputer**—have been quietly repurposed to track **ideological shifts, extremist radicalization patterns, and social stability risks**. What began as **disease spread modeling and behavioral compliance analysis** has evolved into an advanced system for **predicting, identifying, and neutralizing domestic extremism.**
At the core of this transformation is the **fusion of multiple intelligence disciplines**—from **DHS’s Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) initiatives** to **SOCMINT (Social Media Intelligence) and fusion center operations**—which aggregate **law enforcement data, online speech analysis, and predictive AI modeling.** These systems allow authorities to monitor **how individuals react to crises, how they engage with politically charged narratives, and how likely they are to escalate from rhetoric to action.** The same surveillance methodologies used to **predict vaccine hesitancy, public unrest, and resistance to government mandates** have seamlessly transitioned into tracking **radicalized behaviors, nationalist extremism, and potential domestic terror threats.**
Now, this decade-long data infrastructure is being **activated**. The recent **expansion of Guantánamo Bay** and the ramping up of **detention infrastructure under the guise of immigration enforcement** are not solely about illegal border crossings. Instead, they provide **the perfect legal and logistical framework to quietly remove individuals flagged as national security threats.** Using a blend of **machine learning forecasts, social sentiment tracking, and psychological profiling**, the state has created a mechanism to **flush out, classify, and detain extremists before they can mobilize.** And because the operation is camouflaged behind immigration crackdowns, the public remains unaware of its true scope—until it’s too late.
### **Step 1: Create the Perfect Cover Story**
* The **public narrative** must focus on an issue that **justifies mass detentions** while avoiding scrutiny.
* **Illegal immigration is the perfect scapegoat**—it taps into existing fears, ensures public support, and provides a legally acceptable reason to expand detention infrastructure.
* Media and political figures **amplify border crisis rhetoric** to create urgency, making any drastic actions seem necessary.
**Key Indicator:** Detention center expansion is outpacing actual migration trends.
### **Step 2: Expand Detention Capabilities Under False Pretenses**
* Trump pushes for more detention facilities, including Guantánamo Bay, **framing it as an immigration issue.**
* New executive orders and policies are introduced to **increase the legal authority to detain individuals** under vague national security concerns.
* While the public thinks these centers are for migrants, the government **keeps the definitions flexible**—allowing domestic extremists to be added to the list of detainees.
**Key Indicator:** The number of new detention beds doesn’t match the number of undocumented immigrants actually being processed.
### **Step 3: Lure Extremists Into the Open**
* Trump (and others) **strategically embolden far-right extremists** through dog whistles, coded language, and public rallies.
* Extremists feel **safe and validated**, making them more likely to **expose themselves online and in public.**
* This allows intelligence agencies to **compile detailed profiles** of individuals based on their rhetoric, affiliations, and actions.
**Key Indicator:** Extremist groups openly support Trump’s immigration policies, not realizing they are part of the plan.
### **Step 4: Gather Intelligence & Identify Targets**
* Government agencies, in coordination with organizations like the **Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the ADL**, **map out domestic extremist networks.**
* Social media platforms and surveillance tools track **who is participating in rallies, who is posting threats, and who has criminal affiliations.**
* Extremists have been tricked into **providing all the necessary intelligence**—without the government needing to infiltrate them directly.
**Key Indicator:** Increased arrests of far-right figures for seemingly unrelated charges (firearms violations, tax evasion, etc.), which allow for preemptive detainment.
### **Step 5: Create the Legal Framework for Domestic Detentions**
* Trump signs an **executive order targeting antisemitism**, knowing it will be weaponized against **his own extremist base.**
* Other laws expand the **definition of "domestic terrorism,"** allowing for broad and indefinite detentions.
* These legal tools make it easier to **classify far-right extremists as national security threats—justifying their removal.**
**Key Indicator:** Legal shifts make it easier to detain Americans as “domestic terrorists” under counterterror laws originally meant for foreign threats.
### **Step 6: Trigger Mass Self-Incrimination Events**
* Extremists are encouraged to take **bold, public actions** that further justify their arrest.
* January 6th was a **perfect example**—Trump signaled support, extremists took the bait, and now many are imprisoned.
* Similar events (or online escalations) will continue to be used to **push extremists into legal traps.**
**Key Indicator:** Trump and other leaders give just enough encouragement for extremists to act—but then **do nothing to protect them afterward.**
### **Step 7: Quietly Begin the Round-Up**
* As **more extremists are arrested**, media coverage **downplays their affiliations**, focusing on minor charges to avoid controversy.
* Some disappear quietly into federal detention centers, while others are held under **expanded national security justifications.**
* **Guantánamo Bay becomes the ultimate holding facility**, far from public oversight and traditional legal processes.
**Key Indicator:** Unexplained disappearances of far-right figures, or sudden quietness from previously loud extremist groups.
### **Step 8: Keep the Public Focused on Immigration**
* The **media cycle remains dominated** by the immigration crisis to keep attention off the real operation.
* Trump continues **pushing the idea that mass detentions are only for migrants**, ensuring that far-right supporters don’t realize they are next.
* By the time the extremists figure out the truth, **the infrastructure for their containment is already in place.**
**Key Indicator:** Public outrage is directed at immigrants, not at the expansion of detention policies that will ultimately be used against citizens.
### **Step 9: The Final Stage – Reframe the Narrative as a National Security Success**
* Once enough extremists are detained, the government can **publicly shift the narrative** from “immigration crisis” to “domestic security threat.”
* The **round-up will be justified retroactively**, with officials citing the rise of domestic terrorism and the need for extreme measures.
* By this point, **the operation is complete, and public approval is secured.**
**Key Indicator:** The government announces major domestic terror arrests **after years of quietly preparing the operation.**
### **The Ultimate Trap: Why This Strategy Works So Well**
**Extremists Are Helping Justify Their Own Detainment**
* They demand mass detention centers, not realizing they’ll be in them.
* They cheer for expanded law enforcement powers, not realizing those laws will be used against them.
**The Public Is Focused on the Wrong Crisis**
* Immigration is a perfect **decoy**—keeping people distracted while the real operation unfolds.
**The Legal System Is Already Set Up to Hold Them Indefinitely**
* By using Guantánamo, national security laws, and new executive orders, the detainment process avoids normal constitutional protections.
**By the Time They Realize It, It’s Too Late**
* Their leaders won’t save them.
* Their online posts are **permanent records of their extremism.**
* Their detention has already been justified in the eyes of the law.
### **Final Thought: The Most Ironic Crackdown in U.S. History**
The far-right extremists who **demanded mass deportations, militarized borders, and stronger detention powers** have unknowingly walked into their **own containment trap.**
They thought they were **the hunters, but they were actually the bait.**
**By cheering for Guantánamo, they unknowingly cheered for their own cages.**
**By believing Trump was their savior, they helped build the infrastructure that will hold them.**
**And by the time they wake up, they’ll be locked away under the very policies they championed.**
This isn’t just justice.
It’s **poetic justice.**
### POETIC JUSTICE
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-2345-5390
Posts
){kind=link}
0 Comments