Immigration and Deportation and related &@$#ery in the Trump Administration

[Shavano]

Well here we are, on the eve of the Trump administration, with people who promised to stop the invasion, deport millions, and end "birthright citizenship."

this continues where the former immigration thread left off.

Over the next months and years we will see how these promises play out.
Will they really deport millions?
Will they stop the flow of new immigrants into America?
Who will get swept up in their zeal to make America pure and white again for the first time?
Citizens? Green card holders? Refugees? Parents of citizens?

What will it do to industries that rely on immigrant labor, like agriculture, food service, transportation, and construction?

Will the tech moguls get their way and continue to have an express lane around the rules that apply to everybody else?

I do want this to be a unicorn thread. but definitely focused on immigration policys and enforcement and its direct and indirect consequences.

 

[The Aloof Alot]

...I just thought of another (horrible) option why Trump wants Greenland: To dump the migrants in. And then to use them as forced labour for getting the minerals and oil out.

 

[Embattle]

I'm no fan of Trump but in a number of these areas to do with immigration he probably has broader support than many people on the left have ever admitted or accepted, it is one of the big reasons they got beat. Naturally Trump and his crew will take advantage of those broad feelings and go over the top but that is the price you pay for giving the impression of doing nothing on immigration.

 

[CPX]

I'm no fan of Trump but in a number of these areas to do with immigration he probably has broader support than many people on the left have ever admitted or accepted, it is one of the big reasons they got beat. Naturally Trump and his crew will take advantage of those broad feelings and go over the top but that is the price you pay for giving the impression of doing nothing on immigration.

Of course Republicans have broader support for their proposed solutions when the Democratic Party gave the impression of doing nothing. The roles are reversed with regard to healthcare but Democrats as a group just can't seem to sell a damn thing regarding issues these days.

 

[linnen]

I'm no fan of Trump but in a number of these areas to do with immigration he probably has broader support than many people on the left have ever admitted or accepted, it is one of the big reasons they got beat. Naturally Trump and his crew will take advantage of those broad feelings and go over the top but that is the price you pay for giving the impression of doing nothing on immigration.

Support for deportation as in "Trump is going to deport those lower caste immigrants, but he won't touch my friends and relations that I care about"?

As for the "impression of doing nothing", I know that Biden, Harris, and their communications team are getting slammed for not communicating but the jokers that we should be slamming are the news media that did their very utmost to strangle anything positive that might benefit any Democrat. The meme generator, the NYT Pitchbot, has been doing variations of poe headlines like "The Economy is Doing Great! And Here is Why it is Bad for Biden and the Dems!" for almost a decade now and continues to be out done by what actually gets printed.

 

[Citrine]

Support for deportation as in "Trump is going to deport those lower caste immigrants, but he won't touch my friends and relations that I care about"?

As for the "impression of doing nothing", I know that Biden, Harris, and their communications team are getting slammed for not communicating but the jokers that we should be slamming are the news media that did their very utmost to strangle anything positive that might benefit any Democrat. The meme generator, the NYT Pitchbot, has been doing variations of poe headlines like "The Economy is Doing Great! And Here is Why it is Bad for Biden and the Dems!" for almost a decade now and continues to be out done by what actually gets printed.

The continued sanewashing of Trump in the 2024 election was a sight to behold. He'd say the most deranged nonsense and the media would treat it as if it was a serious proposal befitting a serious candidate, while screaming endlessly about Biden Old. And before that, Clinton's Buttery Males.

If the mainstream media shrivels up and dies they have no-one to blame but themselves. It'll suck for everyone else but a lot of the mainstream press is functionally a Republican propaganda arm these days.

 

[AdrianS]

I'm no fan of Trump but in a number of these areas to do with immigration he probably has broader support than many people on the left have ever admitted or accepted, it is one of the big reasons they got beat. Naturally Trump and his crew will take advantage of those broad feelings and go over the top but that is the price you pay for giving the impression of doing nothing on immigration.

The unasked question is "what is wrong with immigration?".

The US was built on immigration- not just the religious bigots pilgrims, but the Irish diaspora, the influx of italians pre ww2, etc.

Why are so many so anti nowadays?
They're taking our jobs (picking veggies in the blazing sun)?
Their religion is terrible?
Their food is icky?

I'm not advocating open borders, but an immigrant nation that relies on "undocumented" workers to do jobs formerly done by slaves demonising immigrants (and the "dreamers") makes no sense.

 

[AdrianS]

I'm no fan of Trump but in a number of these areas to do with immigration he probably has broader support than many people on the left have ever admitted or accepted, it is one of the big reasons they got beat. Naturally Trump and his crew will take advantage of those broad feelings and go over the top but that is the price you pay for giving the impression of doing nothing on immigration.

The unasked question is "what is wrong with immigration?".

The US was built on immigration- not just the religious bigots pilgrims, but the Irish diaspora, the influx of italians pre ww2, etc.

Why are so many so anti nowadays?
They're taking our jobs (picking veggies in the blazing sun)?
Their religion is terrible?
Their food is icky?

I'm not advocating open borders, but an immigrant nation that relies on "undocumented" workers to do jobs formerly done by slaves demonising immigrants (and the "dreamers") makes no sense.

The one I can agree with is the H1B system needs overhaul, as it seems to be designed to replace skilled workers with a form of indentured servitude - if you quit your job you'll be deported.

Did I just agree with Steve Bannon? Yikes!

 

[wco81]

Economist reporter went to a small Iowa town. It's the sight of a big meat processing plant and it depends on a lot of undocumented immigrant workers.

https://www.economist.com/podcasts/...week-for-private-space-travel-what-comes-next

Apparently a couple of decades ago, there was a big roundup of undocumented workers in the town and it hurt them economically.

So while the town and the rest of the state voted for Trump by a big margin, the people in town didn't want to talk about immigration and the undocumented workers they depend on in that town because they were afraid it would just put them on Trump's radar.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Economist reporter went to a small Iowa town. It's the sight of a big meat processing plant and it depends on a lot of undocumented immigrant workers.

https://www.economist.com/podcasts/...week-for-private-space-travel-what-comes-next

Apparently a couple of decades ago, there was a big roundup of undocumented workers in the town and it hurt them economically.

So while the town and the rest of the state voted for Trump by a big margin, the people in town didn't want to talk about immigration and the undocumented workers they depend on in that town because they were afraid it would just put them on Trump's radar.

Something likely playing out all over the country around farms and orchards and anyplace experiencing a boom in demand for construction crews.

 

[Gary Patterson]

The unasked question is "what is wrong with immigration?".

It’s a perfect wedge issue. That’s the problem with immigration. You can blame anything on immigration, and a credulous public informed by a media that unthinkingly regurgitates press releases as news will believe it.

And facts? They won’t be reported anywhere near the same as the lies because the shocking lies sell papers and get clicks.

It’s the perfect wedge issue for politicians, who don’t want to solve it because that takes away its power. The only problem is the true believer who has power. That’s the kind of person who will actually make the mass deportations happen. And Trump has one.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

It’s a perfect wedge issue. That’s the problem with immigration. You can blame anything on immigration, and a credulous public informed by a media that unthinkingly regurgitates press releases as news will believe it.

And facts? They won’t be reported anywhere near the same as the lies because the shocking lies sell papers and get clicks.

It’s the perfect wedge issue for politicians, who don’t want to solve it because that takes away its power. The only problem is the true believer who has power. That’s the kind of person who will actually make the mass deportations happen. And Trump has one.

I keep bringing up this reference because it keeps proving 100% relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing

"Much Apu About Nothing" is the twenty-third episode of the seventh season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on May 5, 1996. In the episode, a referendum is placed on the ballot that will require all illegal immigrants in Springfield to be deported. After learning that Apu will be deported if the measure passes, Homer helps him prepare for a United States citizenship test so that he can become a legal citizen.

[,,,]

After Quimby deploys a bear patrol, which involves the use of high tech vehicles, including B2 Spirit aircraft, Homer is angry to learn his taxes have increased by $5 to maintain it. Another crowd of angry citizens marches to the mayor's office demanding lower taxes. To appease them, Quimby blames the higher taxes on illegal immigrants. He creates Proposition 24, which will force all illegal immigrants in Springfield to be deported.

Springfield residents start to harass local immigrants, regardless of status.

This episode is almost 30 years old and it's exactly as applicable today. An unpopular circumstance is unjustly blamed on immigrants, scapegoated by politicians who don't want to address the underlying problems. Cue universal persecution, with a small number of residents realizing the issue actually affects somebody they know personally.

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

This episode is almost 30 years old and it's exactly as applicable today.

Which is has a strong relationship to why the public has no faith in institutions and takes occasion to "throw the bums out" and "burn it all down".

 

[fil]

Over the next months and years we will see how these promises play out.

Ok, I'll play. Hard to predict what the Trump administration will do on this, especially given internal power struggles around this issue....

Will they really deport millions?

No, but they will deport some and crow about it a lot.

Will they stop the flow of new immigrants into America?

No, but they'll reduce it a bit.

Who will get swept up in their zeal to make America pure and white again for the first time?

They will increase immigration from largely non-white H1Bs, and decrease it from technically-white (according to US census) Arab countries.

Citizens? Green card holders? Refugees? Parents of citizens?

Refugees.

What will it do to industries that rely on immigrant labor, like agriculture, food service, transportation, and construction?

They will crack down much harder on push-driven immigration (ie refugees, people fleeing bad conditions), than on pull-driven immigration (business wants to hire these particular people), so there will be some impact on businesses but not a huge amount.

Will the tech moguls get their way and continue to have an express lane around the rules that apply to everybody else?

To a significant extent, yes, but there will be internal pushback to put some limits on this.

 

[Coriolanus]

Legal Eagle posted a good explainer about the issue earlier today:


View: https://youtu.be/knH3v5aEe_g?si=8Iuz_I2mGECJivjE

 

[Coriolanus]

The unasked question is "what is wrong with immigration?".

The US was built on immigration- not just the religious bigots pilgrims, but the Irish diaspora, the influx of italians pre ww2, etc.

Why are so many so anti nowadays?
They're taking our jobs (picking veggies in the blazing sun)?
Their religion is terrible?
Their food is icky?

I'm not advocating open borders, but an immigrant nation that relies on "undocumented" workers to do jobs formerly done by slaves demonising immigrants (and the "dreamers") makes no sense.

The one I can agree with is the H1B system needs overhaul, as it seems to be designed to replace skilled workers with a form of indentured servitude - if you quit your job you'll be deported.

Did I just agree with Steve Bannon? Yikes!

In my opinion, the problems with the H1B is pretty small compared to how folks make it out to be. H1B visa holders are typically pretty high salaries ($129,000 a year as of a few years ago). They are able to find new jobs by having their new employers sponsor them for an H1B visa (with the added bonus that they can start immediately after the H1B petition is filed with no waiting periods). However, some folks realized they can make white collar folks do that "They took our jerbs!" yell with H1B that blue collar workers got from offshoring.

 

[Shavano]

Economist reporter went to a small Iowa town. It's the sight of a big meat processing plant and it depends on a lot of undocumented immigrant workers.

https://www.economist.com/podcasts/...week-for-private-space-travel-what-comes-next

Apparently a couple of decades ago, there was a big roundup of undocumented workers in the town and it hurt them economically.

So while the town and the rest of the state voted for Trump by a big margin, the people in town didn't want to talk about immigration and the undocumented workers they depend on in that town because they were afraid it would just put them on Trump's radar.

If they voted for Trump, don't they deserve to be on his radar?

 

[abj]

I keep bringing up this reference because it keeps proving 100% relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Apu_About_Nothing

This episode is almost 30 years old and it's exactly as applicable today. An unpopular circumstance is unjustly blamed on immigrants, scapegoated by politicians who don't want to address the underlying problems. Cue universal persecution, with a small number of residents realizing the issue actually affects somebody they know personally.

Immiggants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears I knew it was them!

 

[Soriak]

In a recent poll, conducted by the New York Times, almost 90% of Americans support deporting undocumented immigrants with a criminal record: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/us/politics/trump-policies-immigration-tariffs-economy.html

If Trump sticks to people with criminal records, this will be extremely popular. Not least among immigrants who don't want to be associated with criminals.

 

[QtDevSvr]

If Trump sticks to people with criminal records, this will be extremely popular. Not least among immigrants who don't want to be associated with criminals.

Authoritarian rule is effective at creating criminal records. Not that your point of view acknowledges issues of legitimacy.

 

[Soriak]

Authoritarian rule is effective at creating criminal records. Not that your point of view acknowledges issues of legitimacy.

Given the very small share of immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) with criminal records, it's unlikely there's some grand machination turning all of them (us) into criminals. On the other hand, some people seem to get repeatedly into knife fights until they murder someone. You may want to feel compassionate toward the struggling offender, but most people are going to empathize with the person who got killed. It doesn't make you enlightened to dismiss the costs imposed by repeat offenders.

 

[elliptic]

Step 1: arrest an undocumented immigrant on trumped up charges.
Step 2: deport said immigrant for being here illegally and having a "criminal record".

Yeah, this is going to be extremely popular. /s

 

[QtDevSvr]

Given the very small share of immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) with criminal records, it's unlikely there's some grand machination turning all of them (us) into criminals. On the other hand, some people seem to get repeatedly into knife fights until they murder someone. You may want to feel compassionate toward the struggling offender, but most people are going to empathize with the person who got killed. It doesn't make you enlightened to dismiss the costs imposed by repeat offenders.

Right, because I was obviously standing up for repeat violent offenders. Don't be obtuse.

Oh, right. Obtuse is your thing. That's why you're glibly telling us tonight that immigrant criminality is a super-small problem, but that the Trump promise to address is super-popular. I guess you forget the fact that the connection is that your guy has been telling the country for nine years that all the brown people flooding in are rapists and murderers and criminally insane.

Your initial post is a revolting celebration of propaganda, courtesy of the collaborationist NYT.

 

[Louis XVI]

If Trump sticks to people with criminal records, this will be extremely popular. Not least among immigrants who don't want to be associated with criminals.

I’m old enough to remember way back in September, when Trump promised to deport Haitian immigrants who were here legally, had not committed crimes, and had not even eaten the cats and dogs that Trump and Vance had falsely accused them of eating. So why are we talking about immigrants with criminal records as though Trump intended to stop there?

Because it’s the camel’s nose under the tent, the first step down the slippery slope. Start with something that’s on the surface unobjectionable, and build from there: 1) let’s deport immigrants who have committed crimes! 2) let’s deport immigrants who have been accused of committing crimes! 3) let’s deport immigrants related to those who have been accused of committing crimes! 4) let’s deport immigrants of the same race/national origin/religion of those accused of committing crimes….and so on.

It’s the same playbook being used against trans people, starting with keeping trans women from playing organized sports and swiftly moving along to opposing their very existence, and then moving from trans people to all LBGTQ+ people, and then to women, and so on.

It’s not subtle.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Which is has a strong relationship to why the public has no faith in institutions and takes occasion to "throw the bums out" and "burn it all down".

Right, one party repeatedly invents the same problem, and then, decades later, because those people are still talking about the same invented problem, the public's lack of faith in government of these other party is justified and makes sense.

 

[Tijger]

It’s not subtle.

In all fairness, it never is with Trump or the right. Neither is the hypocrisy.

 

[Louis XVI]

In all fairness, it never is with Trump or the right. Neither is the hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy’s just an expression of power to them—‘damn right, I’m a hypocrite. What are you going to do about it?’

 

[Ananke]

Why are so many so anti nowadays?

While it's tempting to post a pithy rejoinder about our precious bodily fluids, I suspect that, partly, it's about the lack of an obvious opposing constituency.

Politicians can nearly always count on "tough on crime" being a winner. Afterall, crime is bad. Criminals who have not yet been caught can't exactly go on record and assert that crime is actually not so bad (1) lest they be suspected, or outed, themselves. Criminals who have been caught often lose the right to vote, either temporarily or permanently, and are therefore not a constituency to whom a politician need pander.

Ergo, there is a relatively strong push towards one side, and relatively muted pushback from the other.

Immigration is in a relatively similar basket - especially because it is so often juxtaposed with the word "illegal", such that they are often assumed to pretty much mean the same thing. Unless, until, an immigrant is granted citizenship, they have reduced or zero voting rights, and are thus not a meaningful political constituency in and of themselves. The pushback, to whatever extent it comes, comes from the business community, who likes vulnerable employees they can dominate; and from the humanitarian community, who maintain that things like the Refugee Convention are a thing that actually exist and should be respected. The former is significantly weakened due to widespread corruption - assumptions, that may or may not remain true, that immigrants will still be available, but even more easily dominated; and or that officials can be persuaded to look the other way. The latter is widely derided as being soft, lacking machisma, etc etc, and all too easily is twisted by the same juxtaposition: immigration -> illegal immigration <- asylum seeker (it's not fair, but it's nevertheless widespread).

Essentially, it's like announcing a firm policy position against the kicking of puppies, or lauding a political opponent's memory post-mortem: no matter how small the upside, it's still bigger than the downside.


(1) Unless they are in a position to assert that (their) crime is not a crime.

 

[Dr Nno]

It's just a question of color. Immigrants these days are not the right color.

/s

 

[wallinbl]

So while the town and the rest of the state voted for Trump by a big margin, the people in town didn't want to talk about immigration and the undocumented workers they depend on in that town because they were afraid it would just put them on Trump's radar.

How the hell do you recover from having a plurality that votes for someone they know they need to fear disagreeing with?

 

[DarthSlack]

It's just a question of color. Immigrants these days are not the right color.

/s

Immigrants have never been the right color. I mean, "No Irish need apply" wasn't all that long ago.

 

[Shavano]

Given the very small share of immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) with criminal records, it's unlikely there's some grand machination turning all of them (us) into criminals. On the other hand, some people seem to get repeatedly into knife fights until they murder someone. You may want to feel compassionate toward the struggling offender, but most people are going to empathize with the person who got killed. It doesn't make you enlightened to dismiss the costs imposed by repeat offenders.

So you're saying all the nonexistent people who oppose doing anything about the rare thing that every single person agrees about are wrong?

 

[Shavano]

Step 1: arrest an undocumented immigrant on trumped up charges.
Step 2: deport said immigrant for being here illegally and having a "criminal record".

Yeah, this is going to be extremely popular. /s

Sad thing is it probably will be. What do you think the Laken Riley act is for?

While it's tempting to post a pithy rejoinder about our precious bodily fluids, I suspect that, partly, it's about the lack of an obvious opposing constituency.

Politicians can nearly always count on "tough on crime" being a winner. Afterall, crime is bad. Criminals who have not yet been caught can't exactly go on record and assert that crime is actually not so bad (1) lest they be suspected, or outed, themselves.

No, crime is only bad if the person who did it is not a Republican. That's their actual policy and more than half of American voters knowingly voted for a criminal to be President because being tough on crime is so important.

That's the fact that gives lie to their whole tough on crime shtick. They don't care about crime itself. They care about hurting the right class.

Criminals who have been caught often lose the right to vote, either temporarily or permanently, and are therefore not a constituency to whom a politician need pander.

And yet Trump definitely did pander to certain criminals.

 

[Numfuddle]

So you're saying all the nonexistent people who oppose doing anything about the rare thing that every single person agrees about are wrong?

What he's saying is that it is easy to think that everyone agrees with you when the people who might disagree have no voice and no vote and a politician therefore doesn't even have to care if those people are opposed to it.

This applies to any topic where the affeted people are basically disenfranchised for one reason or another. See "illegal" immigrants for example.

edit: it's easy to be against "illegal" immigration when you can basically define at whim what illegal means and if none of the people who are labelled as "illegal" can have a voice or a vote.

The danger is that this can apply to basically anyone at a moment's notice especially in a country that can legally strip anyone of their right to vote or - probably soon - strip them of their citizenship even.

 

[GohanIYIan]

I doubt they make all that much progress on interior deportations. There's too many Republicans in Congress who object to new spending to get any large spending increase approved, and I don't think they're going to be able to get a bipartisan deal in the Senate to reduce due process rights of long settled immigrants. But they might be able to get a deal on reducing due process rights of new asylum claimants. I think a decent number of Democrats agree that the current setup on that isn't working well.

 

[Numfuddle]

I doubt they make all that much progress on interior deportations. There's too many Republicans in Congress who object to new spending

They are only opposed to spending when a Democrat does it. Otherwise GOP led administrations wouldn't regularly triple the budget deficit when they are in power.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

Especially if it's spending that A) hurts people, and B) lines their own pockets.

 

[Sajuuk]

They are only opposed to spending when a Democrat does it. Otherwise GOP led administrations wouldn't regularly triple the budget deficit when they are in power.

Mick Mulvaney says 'nobody cares' about the deficit.

It's evergreen, really.

 

[GohanIYIan]

They are only opposed to spending when a Democrat does it. Otherwise GOP led administrations wouldn't regularly triple the budget deficit when they are in power.

Yes, but their main priority when blowing up the deficit is cutting taxes for rich people and businesses. And their secondary priority is the military. Spending a bunch of money on having more immigration judges is the kind of thing they never get around to.

 

[Deleted member 326875]

Yes, but their main priority when blowing up the deficit is cutting taxes for rich people and businesses. And their secondary priority is the military. Spending a bunch of money on having more immigration judges is the kind of thing they never get around to.

Your point one and two are the same. The military money spend are for contractors/consultants/MIC. It is rare to spend on the military personnel (training, recruitment, retirement).