Will “mass deportation” actually happen (7 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I'm sure this guy did something to deserve being trampled and beaten by local government officials:

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump raising cash off Los Angeles protest mayhem with ‘attack on the homeland’ email

Fundraising committee solicits donations by invoking LA unrest and sweeping travel ban

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

Latinas for Trump founder says mass deportation agenda is ‘not what we voted for’

Florida Republican says Cuban-refugee parents “are now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Latinas for Trump founder says mass deportation agenda is ‘not what we voted for’

Florida Republican says Cuban-refugee parents “are now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller

www.independent.co.uk

FAFO!

She said her Cuban-refugee parents “are now just as American, if not more so, than Stephen Miller,” among the architects of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda demanding 3,000 daily immigration arrests.

Too bad she had to learn the hard way that they are not real Americans!

“I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal,” she wrote.

Again, that was never their true goal, their goal is to thwart immigration of any non-white immigrants. We tried to tell them!

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Trump administration’s deployment of national guard troops to Los Angeles to intervene in civilian protests in the face of opposition from the Californian governor is a major escalation that risks the politicisation of the US military, armed service veterans are warning.

Former top military figures have told the Guardian that the decision to put up to 2,000 troops under federal control and send them into the streets of LA is a violation of the military’s commitment to keep out of domestic politics in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The last time a US president federalised the national guard against the wishes of a state governor was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson deployed them to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama.

“This is the politicisation of the armed forces,” said Maj Gen Paul Eaton. “It casts the military in a terrible light – it’s that man on horseback, who really doesn’t want to be there, out in front of American citizens.”

Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi troops during the invasion of Iraq, predicted that the LA deployment would lead to the eventual invocation of the Insurrection Act.

The 1807 law empowers the president to deploy the full US military against insurrection or armed rebellion.

“We are headed towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which will provide a legal basis for inappropriate activity,” he said.

The largely peaceful protests in LA against Trump’s deportation efforts have entered their fourth day. National guard troops began arriving in the city on Sunday, with authorisation to protect federal personnel and buildings but not to engage in law enforcement activities.

Trump’s move in the absence of a genuine civil emergency has sent alarm through military circles, which have long prided themselves on being above politics.

“This deployment was made counter to what the governor wanted, so it seems like a political forcing – a forced use of the military by Trump because he can,” said a retired senior US army officer who requested anonymity in order to preserve their lifelong non-partisanship.

Trump’s memo federalising the national guard for deployment in LA is written in sweeping terms, in effect casting it as a nationwide mobilisation.

It says that regular military troops, as well as national guard forces, can be employed by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to protect federal functions anywhere in the country where protests are occurring.

Most troublingly, the memo also acts pre-emptively – an action never seen before in the US – authorising the military to be deployed against anticipated protests.

It says that troops can be sent to “locations where protest against [federal] functions are occurring, or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments”.

On Sunday, Trump signaled that LA was just the start of a much wider deployment. “We’re gonna have troops everywhere,” he said.………

Trump LA protest response risks turning US military into political force, veterans warn

Memo authorising the military to be deployed against anticipated protests is pre-emptive act – a first for the US

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trumppardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers.

On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: “IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!”

The discrepancy of Trump’s response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called “a beautiful day,” while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters.

“Trump’s behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it’s to his political advantage,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College………

Trump vows to 'HIT' any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6

President Donald Trump is deploying a double standard in warning protesters against his immigration policies that they will get “hit” if they so much as spit on law enforcement.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

FAFO!


Too bad she had to learn the hard way that they are not real Americans!

Again, that was never their true goal, their goal is to thwart immigration of any non-white immigrants. We tried to tell them!

To be fair who could have possibly predicted that siding with Stephen Miller would backfire?

 

[SamAndreas]

The Trump administration’s deployment of national guard troops to Los Angeles to intervene in civilian protests in the face of opposition from the Californian governor is a major escalation that risks the politicisation of the US military, armed service veterans are warning.

Former top military figures have told the Guardian that the decision to put up to 2,000 troops under federal control and send them into the streets of LA is a violation of the military’s commitment to keep out of domestic politics in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

The last time a US president federalised the national guard against the wishes of a state governor was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson deployed them to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama.

“This is the politicisation of the armed forces,” said Maj Gen Paul Eaton. “It casts the military in a terrible light – it’s that man on horseback, who really doesn’t want to be there, out in front of American citizens.”

Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi troops during the invasion of Iraq, predicted that the LA deployment would lead to the eventual invocation of the Insurrection Act.

The 1807 law empowers the president to deploy the full US military against insurrection or armed rebellion.

“We are headed towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which will provide a legal basis for inappropriate activity,” he said.

The largely peaceful protests in LA against Trump’s deportation efforts have entered their fourth day. National guard troops began arriving in the city on Sunday, with authorisation to protect federal personnel and buildings but not to engage in law enforcement activities.

Trump’s move in the absence of a genuine civil emergency has sent alarm through military circles, which have long prided themselves on being above politics.

“This deployment was made counter to what the governor wanted, so it seems like a political forcing – a forced use of the military by Trump because he can,” said a retired senior US army officer who requested anonymity in order to preserve their lifelong non-partisanship.

Trump’s memo federalising the national guard for deployment in LA is written in sweeping terms, in effect casting it as a nationwide mobilisation.

It says that regular military troops, as well as national guard forces, can be employed by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to protect federal functions anywhere in the country where protests are occurring.

Most troublingly, the memo also acts pre-emptively – an action never seen before in the US – authorising the military to be deployed against anticipated protests.

It says that troops can be sent to “locations where protest against [federal] functions are occurring, or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments”.

On Sunday, Trump signaled that LA was just the start of a much wider deployment. “We’re gonna have troops everywhere,” he said.………

Trump LA protest response risks turning US military into political force, veterans warn

Memo authorising the military to be deployed against anticipated protests is pre-emptive act – a first for the US

www.theguardian.com

I'm upset about this. Very upset about this. I consider his CIC orders to be illegal. If I were in the military now I would resign and not obey his illegal orders.

I've never seen illegal orders before this, not even once during my time. I heard about a few of them during Vietnam, that was before my time. They were issued by low level officers who became excessive in their use of force. Lt. Calley is an example

Those who trained me said about illegal orders, "you will know it when you receive an illegal order."

Receiving an illegal order is hell, there's no good solution for the service person who receives one. A service person who receives an illegal order is probably going to be imprisoned, perhaps shot for doing what is right.

What is right is disregarding an illegal order.

That's how it is. As Nathan Hale said, "I regret having only one life to give for my country."

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

 

[SamAndreas]

To answer the question posed by the opening post. There will not be MASS deportation because the USA doesn't have the resources it would need to deport a large mass that numbers in the tens of millions.

The number of people in the US which MAGA wants to get rid of numbers ten or more milion people. To put it in perspective the number of Soviet troops which were killed during that war numbers in the same range as MAGA wants to eliminate.

What our country could do is to kill them in mass. Moving them out, deporting them, requires much more effort and expense than the USA can muster.

Germany found this mass cost factor out. Germany found that the cost of a single bullet for each person they wanted to eliminate cost too much. That's why they eventually adopted the practice of using poison gas.

The cost in fuel to eliminate the dead bodies in ovens cost more than they could afford by that point in the war as well.

 

[efil4]

To answer the question posed by the opening post. There will not be MASS deportation because the USA doesn't have the resources it would need to deport a large mass that numbers in the tens of millions.

The number of people in the US which MAGA wants to get rid of numbers ten or more milion people. To put it in perspective the number of Soviet troops which were killed during that war numbers in the same range as MAGA wants to eliminate.

What our country could do is to kill them in mass. Moving them out, deporting them, requires much more effort and expense than the USA can muster.

Germany found this mass cost factor out. Germany found that the cost of a single bullet for each person they wanted to eliminate cost too much. That's why they eventually adopted the practice of using poison gas.

The cost in fuel to eliminate the dead bodies in ovens cost more than they could afford by that point in the war as well.

They are attempting to fund the effort in the reconciliation bill.

 

[TampaJoe]

You don't support authoritarianism or Trump, yet you support Trump's immigration policies where he is without doubt being the most authoritarian. Your cognitive dissonance is calling.

The problem caused by migrants are far less than the problems caused by Trump's authoritarianism on immigration. He's turning this country into and unrecognizable police state and you're happily going along with it in the name of "immigration enforcement" while ignoring all of Trump’s illegal and unwarranted actions.

I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer a stable, secure and controlled border. Had we had a stable, secure and controlled border perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Further, I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer law and order where federal state and local law enforcement work together and cooperate. Not sanctuary cities and states. I have held this view long before Trump got into politics. You call it cognitive dissonance. It’s actually common sense and consistency. I am not surprised you don’t know the difference.

 

[TampaJoe]

To answer the question posed by the opening post. There will not be MASS deportation because the USA doesn't have the resources it would need to deport a large mass that numbers in the tens of millions.

The number of people in the US which MAGA wants to get rid of numbers ten or more milion people. To put it in perspective the number of Soviet troops which were killed during that war numbers in the same range as MAGA wants to eliminate.

What our country could do is to kill them in mass. Moving them out, deporting them, requires much more effort and expense than the USA can muster.

Germany found this mass cost factor out. Germany found that the cost of a single bullet for each person they wanted to eliminate cost too much. That's why they eventually adopted the practice of using poison gas.

The cost in fuel to eliminate the dead bodies in ovens cost more than they could afford by that point in the war as well.

Come on Sam. Nobody is talking about mass execution. I do agree it is cost prohibitive to deport millions of people. Biden knew that. Mayorkas knew that. Everybody knew that. And yet they allowed millions to stream into this country unvetted. They knew this was going to happen. It was predictable and was predicted. Oh yeah, they said “don’t come” and yet they came anyway by the millions. And the previous administration allowed them in and gave them notices to appear 4 or 5 years out.

Now this is just my opinion, but that “policy” was either naive and reckless or it was planned. And it backfired on the folks who implemented it. They paid for it at the polls. It was one factor that cost them the last election.

Nothing about this is good. What we should be doing is working together to remove the bad actors that crossed our borders illegally, securing our borders and working together to fashion an immigration policy that makes sense moving forward and also deals with the undocumented migrants that are already here simply looking for work. As you pointed out, it isn’t cost effective to deport 10 million people.

 

[Booker]

I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer a stable, secure and controlled border. Had we had a stable, secure and controlled border perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Further, I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer law and order where federal state and local law enforcement work together and cooperate. Not sanctuary cities and states. I have held this view long before Trump got into politics. You call it cognitive dissonance. It’s actually common sense and consistency. I am not surprised you don’t know the difference.

Come on Sam. Nobody is talking about mass execution. I do agree it is cost prohibitive to deport millions of people. Biden knew that. Mayorkas knew that. Everybody knew that. And yet they allowed millions to stream into this country unvetted. They knew this was going to happen. It was predictable and was predicted. Oh yeah, they said “don’t come” and yet they came anyway by the millions. And the previous administration allowed them in and gave them notices to appear 4 or 5 years out.

Now this is just my opinion, but that “policy” was either naive and reckless or it was planned. And it backfired on the folks who implemented it. They paid for it at the polls. It was one factor that cost them the last election.

Nothing about this is good. What we should be doing is working together to remove the bad actors that crossed our borders illegally, securing our borders and working together to fashion an immigration policy that makes sense moving forward and also deals with the undocumented migrants that are already here simply looking for work. As you pointed out, it isn’t cost effective to deport 10 million people.

That's all a bunch of nonsense. I posted this before -- from the right wing Cato institute no less -- but you apparently ignored it because it didn't line up with your talking points...

Summary

The main takeaways are:

• Illegal immigration had already increased to a 21-year high before Biden entered office.
• Biden immediately started increasing expulsions from his first day in office.
• Biden tripled interior detention and increased border detention 12-fold.
• Biden increased air removal flights by 55 percent over 2020 levels.
• Biden negotiated broader expulsion deals with foreign countries than Trump.
• Biden got many foreign countries to carry out crackdowns on illegal and legal migration.
• Biden removed or expelled 3.3 million border crossers—three times as many as Trump.
• Biden even managed to remove a similar percentage of crossers as Trump’s four years.

Despite Biden’s historic crackdown:

• Expulsions did not deter migrants, even among demographics universally expelled.
• The percentage increase in evasions of Border Patrol increased as much as Border Patrol arrests, implying that releases did not cause the crisis and that many people did not want Border Patrol to catch them but were undeterred by the threat.
• Releases occurred not because Biden cut removals but because migration grew faster than the administration could increase them.
• As a result, releases only occurred among specific demographic groups and in certain areas where removals were logistically complicated.
• Biden could not easily remove groups to Mexico, like families, children, and immigrants from distant countries who were arrested in record numbers.

The actual causes of the increases in illegal immigration were:

• Unprecedented labor demand, which incentivized and funded migration from around the world: From February 2021 to August 2024, there were more open jobs each month than in any month before Biden’s term began. During this time, economies worldwide were recovering far less quickly than the United States. As labor demand subsided in 2024, immigration fell.
• Unprecedented access to information about migration through the Internet and social media: Internet access rose rapidly from 2018 to 2021, nearly doubling in Central America and reaching unprecedented highs in South America. Social media platforms gave people step-by-step instructions on migrating and connected them directly with smugglers. This opened migration from around the world, which contributed to the number of releases.
• Novel and perverse enforcement policies: The Title 42 expulsion policy incentivized repeat crossings by returning people to Mexico, where they could immediately attempt to re-enter the United States. Title 42 also cut off access to asylum, incentivizing more Border Patrol evasions.
• Novel and perverse legal migration policies: Title 42 not only banned asylum for people who crossed illegally but also prohibited legal entries by asylum seekers, including demographic groups that had traditionally always entered legally, like Haitians, Cubans, and Mexican families. Biden eventually increased legal entries by these groups and others, limiting the crisis’s extent and ultimately contributing to its end.

https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-didnt-cause-border-crisis-part-1-summary
https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-didnt-cause-border-crisis-part-2-did-biden-cut-enforcement
https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-did...-would-trump-have-stopped-biden-border-crisis
https://www.cato.org/blog/biden-didnt-cause-border-crisis-part-4-what-caused-border-crisis

 

[J-DONK]

I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer a stable, secure and controlled border. Had we had a stable, secure and controlled border perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Further, I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer law and order where federal state and local law enforcement work together and cooperate. Not sanctuary cities and states. I have held this view long before Trump got into politics. You call it cognitive dissonance. It’s actually common sense and consistency. I am not surprised you don’t know the difference.

You can want a secure, and controlled border while also thinking ICE shouldn't exist. We had the INS before 2003.

The truth is we have millions of illegal immigrants working in this country. These people are normally doing jobs at pay levels a legal citizen wouldn't. These people build your houses, and pick your fruit/vegetables.

If Republicans were serious about this topic, they would have ways for these people to stay here legally, and pay taxes - etc.

What is happening right now isn't anyone getting tough on illegal immigrants. Trump is floundering right now. He needs an easy win. The only thing he still polls well on is migration. So he picks a fight, and inflames the situation in LA to get this exact scenario.

You can deport more people, in a more humane way. You know how we know this? Biden did it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-set-broaden-arrests-deportation-routes-expand-immigration-crackdown-2025-02-21/

 

[fooferdoggie]

 

[Heathen]

I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer a stable, secure and controlled border. Had we had a stable, secure and controlled border perhaps we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Further, I and the vast majority of folks in this country prefer law and order where federal state and local law enforcement work together and cooperate. Not sanctuary cities and states. I have held this view long before Trump got into politics. You call it cognitive dissonance. It’s actually common sense and consistency. I am not surprised you don’t know the difference.

Yeah, just as long as someone tells you the other side doesn’t care about borders and has a policy of being weak on borders as a strategy despite it being a priority for a majority of Americans - you’ll believe it?

Maybe think that one through a bit more.

Maybe it’s just..uhm…political theater?

Maybe?

 

[efil4]

Yeah, just as long as someone tells you the other side doesn’t care about borders and has a policy of being weak on borders as a strategy despite it being a property for a majority of Americans - you’ll believe it?

if it aligns with his core value of "they dont look/speak like us" - yep.

Plenty more like him out there too.

Well unless they can build his deck for 25% less than any other contractor....