ICE Raids & Riots
Sovereign nations are entitled -- even obligated -- to control their borders. They can and should determine who and what can cross their borders, and under what circumstances. The fact that it is possible for people and trade goods to cross borders without authorization doesn't mean that it is, therefore, permissible, or that a receiving nation must accept the presence of everyone who crossed without permission and documentation.
Naturally, undocumented people who have settled here fear and resent being tracked down and sent back to wherever it was they came from. Naturally, their friends and relatives also fear and resent undocumented people's apprehension and removal. But the illegals' arrival and settling in the United States doesn't mean that they are entitled to stay here, however law-abiding they be.
It's difficult to determine what percentage of demonstrators on the street are protesting Donald Trump's mere existence; protesting ICE raids; protesting law enforcement, or protesting all three. Rounding up people--be they vicious gang members, drunks, illegal immigrants, scoff-laws of all sorts--isn't a pretty sight.
This isn't a uniquely American problem, obviously.
What do you think?
Naturally, undocumented people who have settled here fear and resent being tracked down and sent back to wherever it was they came from. Naturally, their friends and relatives also fear and resent undocumented people's apprehension and removal. But the illegals' arrival and settling in the United States doesn't mean that they are entitled to stay here, however law-abiding they be.
It's difficult to determine what percentage of demonstrators on the street are protesting Donald Trump's mere existence; protesting ICE raids; protesting law enforcement, or protesting all three. Rounding up people--be they vicious gang members, drunks, illegal immigrants, scoff-laws of all sorts--isn't a pretty sight.
This isn't a uniquely American problem, obviously.
What do you think?
Comments (175)
The current efforts seem driven by a quota system - they have a number in mind and want to meet it. From what Im reading, ICE are turning up at workplaces where there are likely to be undocumented immigrants employed and basically arresting anyone who appears to be trying to run. Many of those deported are indeed undocumented migrants, but it appears very few are dog-eating rapists. To make matters worse, Trump is deliberately exploiting the effort as a wedge issue to justify further authoritarian steps, such as using the military against civilian demonstrators.
I agree that the Democrat border policies and enforcement thereof were lax, but lets not forget Biden offered a much stricter regimen, crafted with input by James Lankford, a Republican immigration hawk, which was torpedoed by Trump in 2024, specifically because it might have worked. As always, Trump is only ever interested in political advantage and his own self-interest, which will always trump (no pun intended) any legitimate public interest.
From a purely legal and sovereign perspective: Yes, appropriate and reasonable in itself. A sovereign nation has laws governing immigration, and enforcement agencies like ICE are tasked with upholding those laws. From this viewpoint, raids are a direct action to enforce immigration laws and control borders, which is considered a legitimate function of a government. (Sending in national guard and marines is inappropriate and unreasonable and possibly illegal - but different discussion).
From an economic and pragmatic perspective: The appropriateness and reasonableness of ICE raids become far more debatable when considering their significant economic impact. Data shows that undocumented immigrants are deeply integrated into the U.S. economy, filling critical labor gaps, paying billions in taxes and fueling consumer demand. Mass deportations, as a result of such raids, would cause severe economic contraction, significant job losses (even for U.S.-born workers), and a substantial reduction in tax revenue. From this viewpoint, the policy is unreasonable.
From a humanitarian/social perspective: The human cost of raids, including the separation of families and the disruption of communities, raises serious ethical and social questions. While enforcing laws, the methods and consequences can have profound social impacts that I personally find inappropriate or unreasonable from a humanitarian standpoint.
Whether ICE raids are "appropriate and reasonable" depends heavily on the lens through which you view the situation. If the primary focus is on legal enforcement and border control at all costs, they might be seen as appropriate. However, if the focus shifts to the broader economic health and social fabric of the nation, their appropriateness and reasonableness become highly questionable due to the demonstrably negative consequences.
All the while, they weaponised the immigration issue to win election after election; including the EU Referendum. They used rhetoric very similar to that employed by Donald Trump - targeting the same white working class demographic, with the same messaging, to divide and conquer.
When Donald Trump blackmailed $15bn from Congress (and the military budget) to build a wall, with the longest shutdown of the federal government in US history, and then built 50 miles of wall on a 2,000 mile border - I concluded he was exactly the same as the Conservatives in the UK.
Thinking along those lines, I suspect the current situation has more to do with Donald Trump's background in construction than it has to do with any belated attempt to make good on his election promises. After the LA fires, I imagine, there's a lot of juicy contracts - and a lot of immigrant labour gangs looking to cash in. I suspect Donald Trump is rounding up immigrants so that the Teamsters get the contracts to rebuild LA. That's why all this is going down in California right now; rather than in Texas, or anywhere else.
On the immigration issue itself, I do not think illegal immigration should be tolerated. Not in the UK, Europe or the US either. I think we need to revisit the 1951 Convention on Refugees, and reverse the obligations therein such that the costs of irregular migration accrue to the countries people come from. So, for example, every Mexican in a US prison should be paid for by Mexico; not by the US taxpayer. Mexico would quickly develop a keen interest in repatriating its wayward citizens.
[quote=WaPo; https://wapo.st/4kIGFke]GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. Maybe they really were immigration officers, just as they claimed. Or maybe they were a ragtag vigilante group, arbitrarily snatching brown-looking people off the street.
It could have been like a band of the Proud Boys or something, said Linda Shafiroff, recounting the agents who showed up outside her office in masks and tactical gear and refused to show IDs, warrants or even the names of any criminals they were supposedly hunting.
As unrest and military troops overtake Los Angeles, terrifying scenes are also unfolding in smaller communities around the country. They, too, are being invaded by what resembles a secret police force, often indistinguishable from random thugs.
Shafiroff and business partner Sarah Stiner own a boutique home-design and construction firm in Great Barrington, a New England town largely populated by artists, aging hippies and affluent second-home-owners. On May 30, around 11 a.m., six armed agents showed up outside the womens office. The agents were dressed as though they had parachuted into a war zone, rather than a small town where the crosswalks are painted in rainbows. .
These guys had guns hanging all over them, said Shafiroff, but they otherwise had no conformity to their dress. None of them had the same letters on the front of their vests. Some of them didnt even have letters, but it said Police across the back. One had light-colored jeans and sneakers on, and one had on a Red Sox hat. The agents arrived in unmarked cars, some with out-of-state plates.
The women asked to see IDs or warrants, or even the names of the alleged criminals these agents were there to track down. They refused. One briefly flashed a badge, Stiner recounted, but would not let her inspect it even to see what agency it was for.[/quote]
I have no issue with a Sovereign State removing illegal aliens. If I went from UK to USA on a tourist visa and tried to overstay and work for a living I would expect to be booted out fairly quickly.
Neither Bush nor Obama had this problem, and they deported countless people. That was because they approached the problem in a humane way. They didn't revel in the suffering that deportation causes. Enforcing the law was the point, not the pain that it caused. ICE didn't operate like jackbooted thugs.
With Trump and MAGA, the cruelty is the point. Instead of deportations, we have people being sent to a third world prison. When someone is sent there by mistake (by the Trump Admin's own admission- the lawyer was later punished for admitting it), is he brought back? No. And when the courts intervene, the judges are attacked. The courts should be ignored. Habeas Corpus should be suspended.
Brown immigrants are sent to El Salvadorean jails. White South Africans are welcomed as refugees. An undersecretary at the State Department (Darren Beattie) tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work"
People see the deportations as monstrous and racist and so they protest them and try to shield the deportees. Good for them. I would be particularly upset with American Christians, who have turned their back on Christ's teachings, but when is that ever not the case? American Christians aren't real Christians and haven't been for a long time. Probably never.
How is what Trump us doing now different?
Trumps current deportation approach differs from Obamas in several key ways:
- **Nationwide Interior Enforcement:** Trump has expanded expedited removal to apply to undocumented immigrants arrested anywhere in the U.S., not just near the border[2][4][6]. This means ICE can rapidly deport people found anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for over two years[2][4][6].
- **Sensitive Locations Targeted:** ICE is now authorized to conduct raids at previously protected places like schools, hospitals, and places of worshiplocations where enforcement was generally avoided under Obama[1][6].
- **Mass Detention and Daily Quotas:** The Trump administration has set daily arrest quotas and dramatically increased detention capacity, aiming to deport up to one million people annuallymore than triple previous records[6][1].
- **Use of Local Police:** Trump has rapidly expanded agreements allowing local law enforcement to act as immigration officers, increasing the likelihood of arrests during routine policing[6].
- **Legal and Policy Changes:** The administration has invoked laws like the Alien Enemies Act, threatened to use military force, and pursued criminal charges against those aiding undocumented immigrants[1][5].
- **Targeting Broader Groups:** Trumps policies have targeted not only undocumented immigrants but also activists, legal residents, and even U.S. citizens in some cases, with reports of mistaken detentions and deportations[1][6].
- **Promotion of Self-Deportation:** New tools like the CBP Home app encourage voluntary departure, with added penalties for noncompliance, such as fines and revocation of Social Security numbers[6].
In summary, Trumps approach is more aggressive, nationwide, and less focused on recent border crossers, with expanded enforcement powers, broader targets, and fewer protections for sensitive locations compared to Obamas policies[1][2][6].
Citations:
[1] Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
[2] How Trump Has Targeted New Groups for Deportation https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/21/us/trump-immigration-policy.html
[3] Protecting The American People Against Invasion - The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
[4] Ten Harmful Trump Administration Immigration and Refugee Policies https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/20/ten-harmful-trump-administration-immigration-and-refugee-policies
[5] Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration
[6] The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
[7] Inside Donald Trump's Mass-Deportation Operation | TIME https://time.com/7291757/trump-deportation-ice-el-salvador/
[8] From Day One, Trump's Immigration Agenda Has Grown More ... https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/from-day-one-trumps-immigration-agenda-has-grown-more-extreme
Perhaps even more alarming is the acquiescence of the congress both house and senate in allowing this historical power grab to go unchecked and largely unchallenged. The congress can determine that no such invasion or insurrection is happening and help restore historical checks and balances on an executive which clearly intends to push any checks and boundaries to the limit.
The supreme court (another check and balance) has already assured that the president cannot be charged with a crime for these acts (extensive executive immunity) and also seems willing to allow the executive to violate historic norms.
We have ICE agents wearing masks, without names or numbers, often not in uniform, with no agency identification who refuse to show identification or warrants accosting people (largely on the basis of not being white Europeans) on the streets, at hospitals, at schools and at houses of worship.
We have US Marines (trained for combat not civilian policing) deployed on the streets of L.A. against the wished of both the state government and local policing officials.
No one condones violent attacks on federal agents or police or the wanton destruction of property and looting of stores.
No one objects to detaining, arresting and deporting violent criminals, murderers or rapists. That is not what is being done. Instead deportations quotas are being issued and authorities are under pressure from the executive to meet them using any means possible.
Law abiding immigrants who have married American citizens, have children who are us citizens are being deported, often without due process, to foreign prisons, to countries from which they did not come.
Foreign students and researchers are being arrested and detained for weeks and months merely for political speech. This is a violation of human rights and international law and norms.
Yes, countries need to control their borders and yes countries have a right to know who is in the country but the current government is seriously unrestrained and out of control.
What will happen when an election is cancelled under emergency powers due to a manufactured emergency or invasion. Any subsequent protests could be suppressed using active duty US military forces. This is all a potential precursor and testing of the limits of executive power and the weakness of the constitution in certain areas is being clear. This is a clear and present danger.
The policy reasons vary as @Benkei notes above, but whatever that policy is ought be embedded in the law. An argument could be made that it would be undemocratic for a chief executive not to execute the law as passed by Congress, particularly under the US Constitution's "faithfully execute" clause (the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed").
So let's abstract this: Under what circumstances do you wish to empower the chief executive to ignore the democratic will and engage in the wholesale refusal to enforce the law?
In the 1800s, the state of Georgia (Go Dawgs!) in the case of Worcester v. Ga. ignored the Supreme Court's ruling that the Cherokee lands within the state were soverign according to treaty and the state had no power to eject them from their lands. They did anyway and President Jackson didn't care. And the trail of tears followed. Any problem there with Jackson's use of discretion?
Properly understood, the argument that the President is afforded the power to evaluate Acts of Congress and decide whether he will honor them is an increase in his power, not a check on it. In fact, it's an elimination of a check. Unless you're willing to allow the President the power to ignore, let's say, civil right legislation under this broad power of selective enforcement as well, you can't take a principled stance on this except to say he should enforce the laws you like and not the ones you don't.
That doesn't really strike me as the rule of law though.
What I'm saying is that if you want the immigrants to be afforded greater rights, change the law. If we took this idea seriously, we would actually legislate when these matters arose, but we don't. We instead hold up signs in the streets and see if we can get someone in charge to buckle under the pressure. Then we shoot an Australian lady in the leg with a rubber bullet for good measure.
Invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act which is clearly intended for war, true insurrection or rebellion
Ignoring the Posse Comitatus of of 1878 which restricts the use of US military for civilian policing except in times of emergency, invasion, insurrection or war.
There are procedures and methods for removing illegal aliens.
There are historic precedents, norms, customs and values which are being ignored.
I fear this is about more than enforcing law, it is a test of norms, checks and balances and a trial run for remaining in power indefinitely..
This government is ignoring the law. It is invoking these acts designed for true emergencies, insurrections, rebellions and wars precisely to avoid having to afford these people their rights under customary law.
Trump's policies are wild(bad, immoral, unfortunate, only semi-helpful to his goal), but the point of them is absolutely spot-on. The riots are an excuse for angry, ideological people to do damage to their own communities while flying flags of countries they refuse to return to.
I haven't had a single reasonable conversation with someone who supports the riots yet. They just lie about it being peaceful and pretend it has something to do with "No one is illegal". Yes they fucking are.
It does though. DACA is still in effect. The latest court ruling on it is people already in DACA can renew and are safe from deportation.
No, DACA recipients don't have to be pursuing citizenship. You get a S.S. number and eligibility for state id.
My point was just to show that it is very circumscribed, and there are several limits on it. These people aren't granted the right to stay in the US based on some time spend - they must meet the criteria and continue to do so (aging out, eventually - so, there is no continuing safety in the program, it seems) while renewing actively their status every two years or so. That said, I have nothing against this - I'm just saying there is no way for a person to simply stay in the US for a certain period and be granted the right to continue staying.
I'd also posit this is a privilege, rather than right, but that could be nitpicking here.
It seems, though, if you haven't lived it 18 years, you can't get this status, no?
That's an incredibly high barrier and butters no bread for the current issues, I'd think.
No need to mention the Laken Rileys of the world.
"I'd also posit this is a privilege, rather than right, but that could be nitpicking here."
Yes, it's like getting pulled over for speeding and sweettalking the officer into a warning: I was brought here by my parents, I have no memory of my home country, please have mercy.
I was pushing back against Hanover because there is precedent for letting people here illegally be safe from deportation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, there have been umpteen number of people who's lives have been turned around because they were able to escape from horrific conditions in their home countries and come here. Does that balance out? Maybe not, but now consider that WE, the U.S. are responsible in large part for the horrific conditions in those countries because of our insatiable drug appetite and constant meddling in internal affairs to keep the communist menace at bay. Now does it wash out? You probably still don't think so, but I think we have a debt to repay for those countries we fucked over and letting their people in is a small way to repay it, even if it means the occasional Laken Riley.
Yeah, but that's not quite the case, is it? It's only people in the US since a certain time. 18 years, it seems. Given that current immigration is the problem (across the last 9 years, anyway) this wont be relevant to much of the discussion.
Your point is taken.
Well reasonable people don't support riots. They do support free speech, peaceful protest and due legal process. Not being whisked away by masked agents and deported to foreign prisons or countries other than country of origin without any form of legal due process.
The agents are masked for extremely good reason. The optics are noted, nevertheless. As I noted, Trump's policies are wild. I am not defending them. But that doesn't mean the responses is any better. "no one is illegal" and "look how violent I can be" don't work, and never have.
Could we compensate them in other ways besides letting unvetted masses breach our national borders and become our responsibility? Helping them stabilize their own countries sounds like a better solution.
As I see it, a government's responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens.
It is, except a past president called us a shining beacon on a hill and we have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and one of our iconic monuments has this inscribed on it:
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Is that just talk to make us feel good, or are those words to live by?
Just read US citizens were effectively deported because both their parents were. That's impossible where I live.
I see the USA has signed several treaties guaranteeing right to family life but never ratified it.
Unfortunately it is often just talk. The history of immigration in the US is mixed. First it was the English Protestants against the Irish Catholics (try gangs of New York). Then it was the English and Irish against the Western Europeans, followed by those groups against the Eastern Europeans. Not to mention the treatment of Indigenous people, Mexicans in the Southwest present long before it became US territory largely through armed conquest. Try the Asian Exclusion Act or the Immigration laws from the 1920 with quotas by country and race (take a close look at which countries have high and low quotas). Then there are those brought into the country as slaves and their descendants.
There are an estimated 10 million people in the country without legal immigration status, maybe more. The process of finding all those individuals and deporting them will completely disrupt the economy and require methods which disregard legal safeguards and human rights considerations.
The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. The news shows only those looting, or throwing objects, or burning waymo cars. Entirely reasonable people have serious objections to the methods and process being used by Trump. You don't respond to lack of due process or the invocation of laws intended for other purposes.
Typically law enforcement wears badges, name tags or at least badge numbers, dresses clearly to identify themselves and their agency, presents identification on request and uses warrants.
Most Americans are law and order people.
Your profile indicates you are an attorney. Following the law, enforcing the law all legitimate goals.
We don't generally say the ends justifies the means when enforcing the law, we follow procedures.
But see, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
There are no limits on civil proceedings that would remove the person.
They do, but this was the platform Trump ran under. Elections have consequences. It is the will of the people.
I think it's a poem.
No. That's a legal document.
Do you think we should be sending immigrants to an El Salvadorean prison?
The majority of Americans do not seem to approve of the methods being employed.
I wish I thought the majority of voters did indeed pay close attention to a candidates platform.
Unfortunately, I think they do not.
Everyone is for arresting and deporting murderers, rapists, thieves and the like.
They are not so wild about having their gardener, maid, employee or neighbor deported
Again, enforcing the law is one thing, the methods currently being employed is another.
These are complicated legal questions, and so I'd really have to read the court opinions on it. I generally know how the courts ruled, but whether I agree or not would require a deep dive into it before I said it made sense to me or not.
What I push back on is the idea that these questions are addressed through basic notions of fairness or decency. Those nebulous concepts don't control. So, if you have some analysis that suggests a misconstruction of the law and you want to debate various precedent, I don't know I'm up for it, but that would be the only argument I'd consider valid.
I'm going to be honest. As someone who is very anti-illegal immigration for the purposes of robust social programs, job security in the face of automation/AI, social cohesion and UBI, I have found that there seems to be literally no "good optics" when it comes to enforcing immigration aside from rolling over and letting it happen. I've seen fairly milquetoast and reasonable stances shouted down as bigoted and racist time and again over my lifetime. I'm sad to say, at this point it's made me fairly authoritarian on this particular issue, as even normal enforcement seems to get people's knickers twisted. As long as the problem is fixed, I am willing to allow a lot. People really underestimate how bad things are going to get if we don't get our population under control before the jobs start going away.
Does that make me reactionary? Maybe. But if someone complains every time you try to fix a problem, eventually you stop caring about their complaints.
This is a nuanced area of law in the United States, and it's easy to get confused. Here's a breakdown:
1. Unlawful Presence is Generally a Civil Offense:
"Being in the country illegally" (unlawful presence or overstaying a visa) is, by itself, generally a civil violation of immigration law, not a criminal offense. The primary consequence for this civil violation is deportation (removal) from the U.S.
This means you won't typically face jail time or a criminal record just for being unlawfully present.
2. However, Certain Actions Related to Unlawful Presence ARE Criminal Offenses:
This is where the confusion often arises. While simply being present without authorization is civil, the way someone enters or re-enters, or other actions, can be criminal:
Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325): Entering the U.S. without inspection by an immigration officer, or by making false representations to gain entry, is a criminal offense.
First offense: Typically a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or up to six months in prison.
Subsequent offenses: Can be treated as felonies, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison.
Civil vs. Criminal Immigration System:
Civil Immigration Proceedings: These take place in immigration courts and deal with issues like deportation (removal). Individuals in these proceedings do not have the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants (e.g., the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one).
Criminal Prosecutions: These take place in federal criminal courts. If someone is charged with a criminal immigration offense (like illegal entry or re-entry), they have the full range of constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants. END AI
Note criminal offenders are supposed to have legal rights and due process. Have to admit I was not aware of all the nuances.l
Really? You need a court opinion to figure out whether a non El Salvadorian person should be sent to an El Salvadorian prison?
What about returning Albrego Garcia back to the states when the Trump Administration admitted they sent him there by mistake? Do you agree with the way the Trump Admin handled that?
Do you think the constitution and its legal protections are strong enough to withstand an authoritarian like Trump? Or do you think he will simply walk all over it with no or minimal opposition? After all, a Constitution isn't magic, what power will ensure it is upheld?
Really. That's what it means to be a nation of laws.
What law was it that said Abrego Garcia should be sent to CECOT?
Not the first time for me. Though I'd pay heed to:
It makes sense to not jump to a conclusion based on a story we hear, especially if we have expertise in judging said circumstances.
I know Hanover and I disagree on things, but I'd take his word on Oossian law as worth considering.
In a nation of laws, court rulings or judges opinions would be respected and followed until overruled on appeal or by a higher court, not really what is happening here.
The executive is following their own interpretation of the law despite legal rulings.
If there weren't one, then I'm opposed to it. Like I said, you're asking me for an opinion on the validity of the court analysis, and I just haven't looked into it.
If you want to make the case that an opinion was rendered in error, you could well be right. It sounds like you're just asking me to be outraged though. I don't know. Maybe the US has outrageous laws. That's not a basis for ignoring them.
His removal did get a lot more coverage than his return, but there are so many other things to talk about.
Assuming as the antecedent, "if Trump violated the law," the consequent is "Hanover disagree with Trump's actions."
Hanover, are you an American citizen? The Abrego Garcia case has been in the public eye for months here. It's like the Dreyfus Affair. These kinds of individual cases often come to symbolize different political factions. Are you trying to tell me that when people voted for Trump they voted for immigrants to be mistakenly sent to third world prisons?
The question has become, who gets to decide what the law is?
The president? The attorney general? Steven Miller?
Traditionally courts interpret the law and the executive follows and or enforces it?
My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so.
It would be legal to double foreign aid to all countries with majority white populations and eliminate foreign aid to all countries with majority black populations. But what would you conclude about an administration that did that? You wouldn't spare a second thought about that? That wouldn't seem just a tiny bit racist to you?
If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening?
I am Canadian, and I often wonder about the role of the US two-party system in the 'culture wars'?
So, voters can have legitimate concerns about immigration - they are myriad.
And they can be appalled by the cruel bullying that is enabled by Trump's bull in a china shop routine. The Garcia case, the separation of young children from parents, the willingness to disregard laws and norms.
But the two-party system, and the past decade of social media/smart phone tech enabled tribalism, appears to make it dangerous / difficult to break from party orthodoxy, preventing people from improving their own 'tribe's' position, while it making it more important to despise the other tribe.
I think it is pretty fair to argue that wildly increasing immigration numbers while reducing safeguards and screening processes smacks of a technocratic, neoliberal solution to the aging Baby Boomer demographic and their associated entitlements.
Clearly, a post-liberal world order, in which the globe is increasingly navigable, when the external pressures that forced people to adapt to cultures they have immigrated to have diminished, there are conflicts emerging around a new kind of immigrant, one with much less connection, in the aggregate, to their new country.
So these are 'new' problems. Grooming gangs and blasphemy laws in the UK. Foreign influence in protests against Israel. People like our recently departed Justin Trudeau implying that any opposition to immigration is 'racist'.
Foreign interference - Canada's relationship with India is strained, because it appears the Indian government had links to assassins that killed a Sikh nationalist who had moved to Canada in the 90s.
India credibly accused Canada of providing haven for parties with ties to terrorists, Canada credibly accused India of aiding in the murder of a Canadian citizen. I see no clear answers in scenarios such as these.
I used to be a progressive, and now am a conscientious objector. I am sympathetic to newcomers, having taught high school ESL for a decade early in my teaching career, having lived in Tokyo myself for four years.
I think those who are in favor of humane immigration policy need to call out their own 'tribe', to fight the groupthink impulse, or we will continue to get these wild reactionary swings from one extreme to the other.
As for the riots and the protests, bad actors have always operated within the safety of the crowd, the mob, the protest. It just seems to me that the percentage of bad actors is increasing as it becomes easier to define violence as righteousness?
It seems the whole WEIRD world is defaulting to the US tribalistic binary? It sure felt like that to me when we imported the BIPOC hierarchy verbatim, despite our 'I' being in the wrong place. America's original sin may be slavery, but ours in Canada would be our treatment of our native peoples.
Oh the two party system is absolutely a big part of it, and it's especially weird right now, because I suspect we are in the midst of another party realignment but few want to admit it. In meatspace it's still pretty easy to find people with fairly normal or apathetic political opinions, but as more of the social landscape moves online and things become increasingly politicized, the internet has made it difficult to maintain neutral positions. I'm a registered Independent who has never voted for Trump, but I find myself increasingly alone politically as I don't fully agree with either side, despite previously leaning more left. Neither party seems interested in much aside from getting re-elected by telling you how bad the other party is.
Everything about the Los Angeles situation is political theatre aimed at establishing the precedent of using American military forces to stifle dissent, another building block in his attempt to create a one-party state (and you think two parties are a problem!) With Trump, everything is always pretext - he appeals to so-called emergencies to as to use emergency powers to rationalise economic and social policies that would otherwise never be considered. This Saturday 14th June, hes having his mock Putin-style military parade in Washington, but theres also a massive series of demonstrations planned under the banner of No Kings. Lets hope theres a massive, US-wide turnout.
If Trump is using these protests/riots as an excuse to crack down and extend his authority, it seems like the No Kings protests might just give him more of that. By attempting to establish his actions in LA as "law and order" against non-citizens via the media, then the natural next step would be to create a similar situation that "justified" doing the same to Americans, and then using anyone swept up in that with a particularly salacious record to further justify it in the media. Kind of feels like playing in to his hands.
WHAT IS DACA?
DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is a U.S. immigration policy that provides temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. It essentially allows them to live and work openly in the country, though it does not grant permanent legal status or a path to citizenship.
Key aspects of DACA:
Eligibility:
To be eligible, individuals must generally have arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007, be physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and have no lawful immigration status at that time.
Benefits:
DACA provides a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and allows recipients to apply for a work permit, Social Security number, and driver's license.
Not a path to citizenship:
DACA does not grant lawful permanent residency (a green card) and does not provide a direct path to U.S. citizenship.
Ongoing legal challenges:
Despite its broad support, DACA has faced numerous legal challenges, and its future is uncertain.
In summary, DACA is a policy that offers temporary protection and some rights to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, but it does not provide a permanent solution to their immigration status.
AI Response to the question
Aren't there numerous examples of things like that happening in our history already?
I have never heard this term before (admittedly, I am out of touch). It immediately resonated.
Quoting MrLiminal
I feel you. It is strange here in Canada that we have rushed to import this thinking - people were critiquing our Conservative candidate for PM because he was going to wage war on reproductive rights - despite the fact that he has never endorsed this position and Canadians generally don't endorse this position. We just took the talking point and applied it to our guy.
I read Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" last year, and have been obsessing about it ever since. His premise, if you haven't read it, was that the era of 'mass entertainment' was fundamentally different from the 'typographic' era that preceded it. As a student of McLuhan, he drew on his thinking to tackle the medium of television - which lead to the message of dislocation.
So what is the message of our screen-based era? I think it might be dissonance. As in, cognitive dissonance. A general, default state of anxiety? Does this play into your statement?
Quoting MrLiminal
How do you see this playing out?
Quoting Wayfarer
Agreed.
I think Matt McManus is onto something when he talks about 'postmodern conservatism'. I don't really think of Trump as conservative, but if he is, he seems a 'postmodern' conservative.
I think the Dems a postmodern party. Everything is relative, and yet for moral relativists, they sure are judgemental. They simply defer their moral judgements to technocratic moral 'experts'.
Neither party seems to actually believe in anything. Both land on 'stories' that resonate with their base.
Don't get me wrong - the worst party in this whole mess seems to be Trump. But Dems had plenty of chances to consider working class rural white concerns around immigration, for example.
They just defaulted to the easy narrative of ignorant and bigoted white deplorables.
Dems are definitely part of this problem. I generally support immigration, and used to be progressive. I fear that progressive stupidity is making things worse for the sort of immigrant most nations want to attract.
Progressives need to call out their own BS. Pointing at the failings of Trump isn't getting anyone anywhere. And the man is arguably not a failure - he's a hugely successful postmodern neoliberal opportunist.
Trump supporters and conservatives generally need to do this too. Hold your own tribe to account first. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Tbf it's not a common term. I'm an old sci-fi nerd, lol. Quoting Jeremy Murray
I would probably agree, but further posit we are post-mass media to a degree, as the internet has allowed people to sink further and further into soloed entertainment. On some level, I think part of the general unrest in America and possibly worldwide is *because* we are losing mass media to increasingly fractured interests. We no longer have a common story to tell or share, so everyone else seems increasingly alien outside your specific circle.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Unclear. I think in a way the Republicans may be becoming the new big tent party temporarily while the Democrats become the new "moral majority." I think how that shakes out will largely depend on who wins the power struggle after Trump dies/leaves office and if that results in a party fracture or not.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I would say that's what it's always been, to a degree. As I said above, I think the larger problem is that our increasing levels of internal navel gazing is making it difficult to see differing ideas as something to entertain. If everyone you know always agrees with you, why would you ever want to talk to someone that didn't?
Clear horseshit. These are views of entire blocks and full stretches of highway - multiple cities, multiple neighbourhoods. This is just having blinkers on, at this stage.
Quoting prothero
Agreed.
The rest of your post tells me nothing, really. If people are here illegally, they should be deported. If people are rioting over that, sleep in their own beds. They are rioting, so they can sleep in their own beds.
This, again, acknowledging that Trump is absolutelyultra vires here (for the most part). That said, ICE agents being doxxed with families being threatened for enforcing laws and following their lawful commands (i.e chain of command instruction) is reason enough to protect their identities in lieu of ignoring immigration laws.
Once again, for complete clarity: Some of the methods are obviously overstep. Riots are too. Being here illegally isn't in any way ambiguous, or a 'humanitarian' issue. Its a legal issue with a clear and obvious response required.
In the sake of fairness, I wonder if this is a semantic issue at heart. I've lived in both big cities and small towns; 5 blocks in a big city can be nothing, but 5 blocks in a small town can be half the town. I think the most fair way to compare would be to previous riots/protests of similar size, and whether the amount of peaceful demonstration to destruction is above or below the median.
Dont know, Id have to do the research. But it has been said the last two days that in the Rodney King riots in LA in 1992, the Governor requested the National Guards help. It wasnt imposed on them.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Trump is not a conservative in any meaningful sense. Hes someone who has hijacked conservatism for his own ends, and evicted many meaningful dissent from the Republican Party. There are some skilled Republican operatives who are using all of this as a vehicle, like remora fish around the great white shark, but none of the classical conservatives would recognise what the Republican Party has become.
This is clearly not BLM levels of dickheadery, but its the same shit. Businesses looted, cars destroyed, highways blocked:
"Police reported people were shooting fireworks at officers. Rocks, scooters and cinder blocks were thrown at police cars. People attempted to set police cruisers on fire. Protesters also threw cinder blocks at police officers and at other people.[100] Five Waymo driverless cars were vandalized, set alight, and destroyed. LAPD officials warned that burning lithium-ion batteries releases toxic gasses."
"The LAPD reported that looting had occurred at stores in the area of 6th Street and Broadway (downtown Los Angeles),[106][107] as well as near 8th Street and Broadway.[108] Several fires were also reported to have been set in dumpsters and trash bins. Numerous buildings, including the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, the United States Courthouse, and the old Los Angeles Times Building, were tagged with graffiti. At least one store had windows shattered by alleged looters.[109] Multiple windows at the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters were also broken.[109]"
"Mayor Bass declared a local state of emergency ..."
This "mostly peaceful" shit has got to stop. By numbers? Maybe. That isn't the point.
Thank you. To be honest, I'm not sure it's correct either, but it seemed like a worthwhile point to consider.
Hence a pomo conservative? One that questions master narratives, such as 'classical conservatism'?
Regardless, I agree that Trump is not a classic conservative. Neither am I, but I still find myself offended, on behalf of the classic conservatives I admire, by his actions.
Quoting MrLiminal
That is the screen-based outcome. Each additional 'screen' is an additional layer, one on top of the other, each distorting the previous frame, like those old anti-drunk driving adds where they just piled one beer on top of another beer to give the viewer a sense of the experience of driving drunk.
The mass-media age was Postman's, in the 80s. Smart phones + social media is a transformation akin to the printing press, perhaps greater, given that the designers are well aware of how to make their product more addictive. Nobody became 'addicted' to print.
The era of the screen is inherently siloed. That dissonant experience is the point, the only solution offered being the endorphin hit of participating, alone, isolated, in your tribe, virtually. The protestors in LA have more in common with international communities than they do with conservative Americans?
Quoting MrLiminal
With enough degrees of difference, one enters a different category. It used to be pretty standard to encounter people across the spectrum from you that you could still find points of agreement with.
I think our current moment is unprecedented. Not, 'all history is unprecedented', but rather, a once in a millenia epochal change?
Quoting AmadeusD
I used to attend a lot of protests. Anecdotally, they were 'mostly peaceful' and this new strain of protests appears significantly less so.
It seems pretty clear to conclude that 'the woke' today condone violence in a 'by any means necessary' sense that is fundamentally different from protests of even a decade ago?
I tend to just look at what's happening in each case - BLM, I was on board with until I realised it based on a lie (disproportionate death of unarmed black men in Police encounters - absolute nonsense) and subsequently meant it was very, very close to what i'd consider a terrorist insurrection.
In this case, I see things like that the rioters are protesting deporting but flying flags of the countries they refuse to return to. Totally unserious and it looks like an excuse for the normal, social-media-enraged Youth to feel historically important and self-righteous by way of "morally permissible" violence. Again, totally unserious in my view.
AI report on the extent of violence in LA. Remember media does not sure show peracefull demonstrators only the more violent aspects.
AI report
Recent Protests (June 2025 - Immigration Enforcement):
In contrast to the historical riots, recent protests in Los Angeles regarding immigration enforcement have been described as far different in scale and primarily peaceful, though some instances of violence have occurred. Key characteristics include:
Mainly peaceful: While there have been clashes with police, arrests, and some property damage (cars set on fire, vandalism), the overall sentiment from officials and reports is that the majority of demonstrations have been peaceful.
Limited geographical scope: The protests have largely been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny area in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people.
Fewer casualties and damage: Unlike the 1992 riots, no one has died, and there have been no widespread burning of homes or businesses. Damage has been minor in comparison.
Lower arrest numbers: While over 100 people have been arrested, this is a significantly lower number than the thousands arrested in past major riots.
Differing government response: While the National Guard and Marines have been deployed by federal order, local officials, including Mayor Karen Bass, have stated that the unrest is not "citywide civil unrest" and that the city has it largely handled, expressing concerns that the federal deployment might inflame the situation end of AI jreport
The media by its nature exaggerates the situation, as does the Trump government and right wring news organizations. Clearly to justify more aggressive law enforcement tactics.
This was also said of BLM, with buildings burning and assaults occurring at the time.
Quoting prothero
Give it time. BLM riots lasted months. I'm not pretending this riot is somehow as big or bad as some previous ones at this moment. But "mostly peaceful" simply ignores the non-peaceful aspects - which are the point.
BLM was "mostly peaceful" but 19 people died and $1-$2bil in damages occurred having achieved nothing, and was based on a lie (two, actually). So its probably best not to use terms designed to prevaricate and have been shown to be disingenuous.
Well there are statements from the mayor and the police chief.
So I wonder where you get your more factual view of the overall situation.
I hope it is not fox news or youtube videos. Do you have some impartial source or someone on the ground.
No, I agree, the internal rabbit holing and propaganda on this wide a scale is a uniquely modern problem. The first part was referring to politics always being stories.
Why is what not happening? The foreign aid scenario I talked about? Because some things are a little too on the nose even for the Trump Admin to pull off. They have the Midterms to think about. If the racism becomes too overt, they suffer politically.
An undersecretary of the state department tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work"
Does that happen in a non racist administration?
Well, the quest for power is as old as time and a constant in historyl.
The founding fathers were very concerned about the concentration of power in any one branch of the government. I think they naively assumed that no one like trump would become president. Or if someone did he would be checked by the congress or the courts (may still happen). Impeachment was also a mechanism for removing such an individual. After recent supreme court decisions giving the executive extensive immunity, there is little risk in pushing executive power to the limit.
the founding fathers really did not envision political parties they were a little naive and idealistic..
They also went out of their way to avoid direct democracy, and limited the vote to men of education and property (those with a stake in society). They expected men of character, integrity and intelligence to serve for a period and then return to their private lives.
My view is we are way off track with two political parties, universal suffrage, fractured media and an inability to respect different points of view.
There are legitimate differences of opinion about the size and scope of government but those who disagree with us are not traitors or enemies of the state.
The congress was supposed to a deliberative body who would indiviudal vote their conscience and do what was best for the country.
Instead the party leaders tell everyone how to vote and then punish those who fail to comply. Primary them in primaries, withhold committee assignments, withhold funding, etc. Most everyone then toes the line and the government is really run by just a few individuals and the rest just wish to keep their jobs and get reelected. The best peole are declining to run for reelection or declining to run at all and who can blame them
I think we crossed a Rubicon in 2020 when Trump tried to steal the election. In the aftermath, there was a bipartisan vote to impeach and convict him, but it fell short of conviction. Still, very rarely do members of a president's own party vote to convict in an impeachment.
I am unsure why you would trust an official over that. Particularly one's who aren't excatly bastions of truth and light.
Quoting RogueAI
"If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black!" - Joe Biden
It seems perhaps so. We could put this down to Biden making a gaffe, but that's cop out material. Given that his administration put forward at least a few overtly racist policies or guidelines (COVID recovery, ARP, COVID mortgage relief guidelines etc..) it isn't that hard to see why people are going to equivocate.
Its hard to think Trump or Biden are actually racist - they both played to their audience. Does this mean everyone is racist? Probably all the loud people, yes.
It was terrible that Biden said that, but what do his actions show? Does he act racist? Did he hire someone who said "competent white men must be in charge" or did he prioritize putting the first black woman on the Supreme Court and arguing in favor of affirmitive action? What similar things has Trump done to help blacks? I can't think of anything.
Your point isn't lost, hence my only real conclusion being:
Quoting AmadeusD
When the sorts of racism I'm picking up are overtly defended I have no problem with acting as if (though, this is wrong) its on the same level of some of Trumps statements. but again, i don't think either is actually racist. These sorts of moves (i.e "No, this form of racism is fine. In fact, we will re-define racism so it doesn't capture these clearly racially-motivated policies which detriment, or lift up specific racial groups for opportunity") are precisely hte kind of moves an authoritarian would make prior to something like "whites need to stay at home".
Oh wait. That's also happened, in some areas (though, no govt. backed at all - sidenote, and definitely glib).
Oh.. fwiw: I think Trump is a worse speaker than Biden by some considerable margin (last 36 months or so notwithstanding). He will make more mistakes than any other official, and seems to be doing so. He just doubles down, which is imbecilic when he could clarify that he sucks at it but his ego wont let him). So, I actually give Trump a bit more margin for error in this sense - he's mostly talking shit. A bigger problem, in a different way.
6:22 PM PDT
Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from activating National Guard troops in LA
By Helen Jeong
The Trump administration is blocked from activating U.S. military troops in Los Angeles, a judge ruled Thursday after hearing arguments over California's request to limit the scope of the National Guard and Marines' mission in Los Angeles as demonstrations continue over immigration enforcement operations.
'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom had asked a court earlier this week to put an emergency stop to the military helping federal immigration agents, who have carried out raids in the region that led to protests over the weekend and throughout the week.
Under the ruling, the Trump administration will have to return the California National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom.
The order will not go into effect until 12 p.m. Friday, California time, as Judge Charles Breyer ordered a stay to give the Trump administration time to appeal
.Quoting AmadeusD
So video footage and pictures (the extent of which could hardly be evaluated) with respect to the overall picture. This is more reliable than the police chief of L.A. , the mayor and the governor of the state. Your are not striking me as trying to get a fair and balanced picture of the overall situation rather just confirming your preexisting bias, I'll grant you it is hard to get at the truth these days but you don't really seem to be trying very hard either. I'll trust the elected officials on the scene. I am not condoning rioting, assault or destruction of property but the actions of a few do not negate the legitimate legal and constitutional concerns of peaceful protestors and many legal and constitutional scholars.
If you can't evaluate them against the objection facts of the extend of LA, the extent of downtown LA, the numbers involved and the levels of violence I am unsure what to say....
I'm unsure I have, since Jan 6, seen swathes of politically-motivated pundits deny what is before their eyes in my lifetime (particularly in reliance on biased and clearly politically motivated officals statements which contradict the video and image evidence - and hte evidence of those who are literally under attack). Victim blaming at its finest, I say.
Quoting prothero
Yes. Obviously. This is not a serious discussion if you think otherwise. This seals it:
Quoting prothero
Oh brother.
Quoting prothero
To be fully clear, i don't expect anyone here does (except maybe Mikie and probably not him even). I do expect people to be incapable of seeing the truth, for their prior commitments though. I don't actually have any. They're all shitheads to me.
I think people in every administration have said and done racist things. It is an unfortunate reality that there will probably always be racists, and some of them will get into positions of power. Obviously his statement is racist and wrong, but I don't find throwing back and forth quotes of politicians saying unhinged things particularly helpful in discussion.
Oh, that's not the only thing:
"A speechwriter for the Trump administration has been fired following reports that he spoke at a white nationalist conference in 2016.
The White House confirmed to US media on Monday that aide Darren J Beattie, a former visiting instructor at Duke University, had been dismissed.
Mr Beattie had appeared on a panel at the HL Mencken Club conference, which is attended by white supremacists."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45249154
And now he's an undersecretary at the State Department. Of all the qualified people in the country for that position, we hired THIS guy? After firing him years ago for being a racist? Nobody else could do that job? Really, now.
I agree with that since we cannot even agree on the facts much less the solution.
This is an unfortunate aspect and common feature of our modern society and fractured media.
Have you ever been to LA, do you live in the US? Do you always think those who disagree with you are not serious or worth having a discussion with?
He should be fired then, but again, I'm sure I could find deplorable people in every administration. Politicians tend to be bad people, in my experience.
We cut that part out of the curriculum because it was variously "not going to get the kids jobs and make them money like STEM," or because we need to "decolonize and deconstruct the classics."
Now we get to reap the benefits of raising even the country's elites for a tech-bro-ocracy, the reduction of politics and the common good to an engineering problem (just as plenty of contemporary political theory suggests we should). It's the Baconian mastery of nature turned inwards, without any thought as to whether mere "technicians" and "CEOs" would have the stomachs and hearts to take a stand against demagoguery when it would cost them something.
But, as a nation of primarily "consumers' and "workers" I suppose we don't really need a republic anyhow.
Politicians have plenty of incentives to downplay violence and vandalism. See January 6th. Photos can be misleading of course, videos too. I can't find it now but there is a great picture from Paris of the Yellow Vest protests where one shot looks like a giant fire in front of a line of police with a crowd pressed in on all sides and then the same fire is shown from further out and it amounts to a few newspapers worth of fire with like 12 people standing around it in front of the police.
But the damage here seems more extensive than that. The optics of burning cars and people waving foreign flags in front of them is obviously not great for building wider sympathy at the very least.
Can you think of a comparable situation in a democratic administration?
Yes, but how would any of us actually know? I sort of agree it's hard to trust the media these days, Fox news versus MSNBC would make you think these events are on different planets. If we cannot trust the officials on the ground and in charge then who do we turn to? All part of our modern dilemma. Maybe put some dromes' in the air for a birds eye view.
Wow that sucks.
Does this indicate though that the administration perhaps isn't quite so gung-ho racist as purported? Unsure - but worth noting that this could cut both ways. Sitll, thanks for that. I wasn't aware.
Definitely. I was going to mention Jan 6. But more on point would be this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/funeral-etiquette-trumps-blue-suit-133712946.html
You get quotes like this from a fucking legal expert:
"One guy shows up in a blue suit to the pope's funeral. You will never guess who" from Filipkowski.
All you need do is zoom out a little bit to know that this entire narrative is a complete an utter lie. Similar to "fine people on both sides". There is a rather extreme tendency to flagrantly misrepresent Trump to flare up social rage. The number of retracts The View has had to put out is embarrassing.
That isn't particularly reasonable. Personal opinion i guess. Just a way to make it look better. Quoting prothero
If we're aware of hte geography of the city, and have plenty of aerial photography I can't understand how you cannot. Statements from officials are so far removed from anything remotely approaching 'evidence' I just can't wrap my mind around how you're approaching this. Sorry if that's coming off insulting or anything. I'm somewhat incredulous, tbh. Quoting prothero
Yes.
Quoting prothero
Are you serious with this question? Because this is just further showing me that you are not seriously engaging a discussion - no good faith here, if this is a serious question.
They hired him again! After he said competent white men should be in charge! Aren't you asking me to do an incredible suspension of disbelief when you argue the Trump Admin isn't racist in the face of something like this?
Mitch McConnell must rue the day he voted not to confirm Trump's second impeachment, for the disgraceful assault on the Capital Building, on the grounds that it 'should be dealt with by the courts'.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
I am responding to this type of polemic and statement of opinion as undeniable fact. I have seen the videos and pictures (almost a continuous loop on Fox). Do they tell us more about the extent, than deaths, injuries, hospitalizations, arrests, and official statements?
Biden supported racial riots. I'm not really saying anything here - just that people are going to see things the way they see things. Trump, himself, certainly doesn't seem like 'a racist'. The administration definitely has racists among it.
Yes, obviously. This is not a serious discussion if you think otherwise.
Sonetimes it is. It's called civil disobedience and that can sometimes be a duty if a law is outrageous enough.
I'd call it bad ethics to wait for other people to decide on what you should think of a certain event, law or statement.
I just said I don't find this kind of back and forth helpful. It exists and we both know it; I refuse to get in to a quote slinging contest with you. I am past the point of pearl clutching on this kind of thing.
Is illegal immigrant a race now?
Just seems bad faith to conflate the two, when the very quote you used had him referring to multiple different races of illegal immigrant. I have a hard time believing a man who spent much of his life as a NY Democrat is some virulent racist. Trump does enough inflammatory stuff, and misrepresenting him like that only makes people less likely to believe the actual bad things he does.
Again, I will not do this with you. I think most if not all politicians are morally reprehensible people, so this line of thought is profoundly uncompelling to me. I vote for which monster I think will further my goals. If you are under the assumption this is not the case, I don't think this will be a productive discussion.
Really? There's no disqualifying behavior a politician can partake in that would make you not vote for him? To take an obvious extreme case, what about a politician that furthers your goals perfectly, but is revealed to be a Grand Duke in the KKK? He's also been impeached for bribery. As a citizen, would you vote for this person, assuming the impeachment fails and he runs again. As a senator, would you vote to convict in an impeachment trial if your vote meant conviction? Assume you are convinced on the bribery charges.
A politician that furthered my goals perfectly would not do those things. If you will not change your approach, I will not respond further. To throw you a bone, I do find it very likely Trump is racist to some degree, just probably not any more so than most other politicians or citizens his age, which makes the issue a moral wash and therefore uncompelling.
I want to unpack this, because it seems demonstrably false. What was morally reprehensible about Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Obama, for example?
Really? I'm thinking of the case of Bill Clinton, who furthered a lot of my goals, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him because of his behavior. That can't happen with your goals and some hypothetical sleazy leader? Can you give examples of some of your goals?
This is the same discussion reframed. If it is not already obvious to you why high level politicians inherently tend towards being bad people, I am not interested in explaining it.
I gave some examples of my goals in my original post: robust social programs, social cohesion, UBI and pro-labor. It would be difficult and frankly unbelievable for a KKK member to espouse those things.
Fair, I am open to discussion, I just find the constant back and forth moral litigation of politicians to be a waste of time when I believe that being a politician is itself a likely indicator of moral rot.
When you make politics a career - that is the problem.
Why is that a problem? Lincoln made it a career and I think he was awesome.
Why do you think America limited the number of Presidential terms to two? I wonder why Congress doesn't do the same for themselves. They can easily write laws to control the other branches of government but can't seem to write ones that control themselves.
I disagree. While admittedly it's unlikely that EVERY politician is irrdeemably evil, I actually find it freeing, as the constant moral litigation of upper echelon politicians is largely a distraction from the actual issues, I find. (Local politics are much more likely to have decent people, for instance). Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. Either way you pick evil, but I'm interested in end result over moral purity.
I think it strikes people as kind of dictatorial and goes against the example Washington set.
But you said it's a problem to have career politicians. What was the problem with FDR? FDR's best moments happened well into his 3rd term. He was a great wartime president. As long as the person has to keep getting elected, why is it bad to keep them in office?
There are other options on the ballot. In 2020, the argument was that you don't want to vote for the racist, DT. But Biden is also racist. There were non-racists on the ballot if that was really one's concern.
The fact that the other options didn't have a chance in that election was due more to people being uninformed of the other options. When independents outnumber Democrats or Republicans why are we not seeing equal representation in the media during the political campaigns?
Agreed. But 3rd parties are rarely what I would call effective at winning. I think this is a problem and at least partially due to suppression from the two major parties, but it's the reality we've been dealt. I was big into Bernie in 2016, and we saw how that went, and he wasn't even technically a 3rd party candidate.
Because having power over others makes it easier to keep that power by controlling the media and establishing long-term relationships with lobbyists. With new people coming in, deals would need to be renegotiated.
Which is why I say that the answer isn't a third, fourth, or even a fifth party, but no parties. I think the best way to obtain that is to simply stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. That would allow people like Bernie free of the group-think and the power of the heads of the party. The media would become less biased. Citizens would be forced to educate themselves about the candidates rather than looking for Ds and Rs next to people's names.
And to tie this into the subject of the thread, having no parties means that we would be less inconsistent with our concern over the inappropriate application of power when your party is in power vs the other party (selective outrage).
That's certainly a concern!
Agreed again, I just don't see a realistic way forward for that to happen.
Immigration has often been a top issue for voters, so it is hardly that it was a low priority for the populace. Rather, inaction and lawlessness became preferable to any difficult action.
Because lawlessness is allowed, the executive ends up having ultimate discretion over policy, because they decide whether or not to enforce the laws, now that doing so is optional (e.g., not making marijuana legal, but simply refusing to enforce existing laws).
Both Biden and Trump won fairly close elections with unclear mandates. Trump didn't even win a majority of all votes cast. Yet both now had the authority to make massive shifts on immigration. Biden massively increased immigration as the pandemic waned, allowing for more net migration in the last two thirds of his term than Obama and Bush had in their two terms. Trump radically reversed this.
Certainly, events since Trump took office give lie to the idea that it was simply impossible to deter border crossings.
There is a broader sort of issue here where, unfortunately, where if one keeps to certain principles, one will invariably be taken advantage of. People will game these principles. You can see this in the way the Houthis will attack international shipping despite being incredibly reliant on aid shipments to feed their population. They know the West will keep sending aid even if they destroy some of their ships and murder their citizens. Likewise, Iran is comfortable firing mortars on US bases in Iraq because it knows it won't engage in dramatic responses.
So too, pro-migration groups are pretty out in the open about following caravans and telling people exactly the sort of stories they need to tell to qualify for asylum claims. Have gangs really been going up to families and saying: "we plan on killing your baby unless you flee the country!" Maybe, although it's not the sort of things criminal organizations normally do. But that these sorts of claims have become so common seems to have more to do with what sorts of stories qualify for asylum.
The Biden administration, rather than seeking for a change in the laws, used the asylum program as a way to increase migration, which caused applications to jump from 170,000 in Obama's last year to almost a million by 2023. This was a shift started under Obama and which continued under Trump. Claims were already up 10 fold by from 2009 to 2016 (and stable before that). There is little relationship between violence rates in Latin America and this giant increase.
This is simply gaming the laws, and whatever the good intentions of people who pushed in this direction, it's obviously jeopardizing the program.
Of course, those in favor of dramatic expansion don't see an issue with this because it's the right thing to do. People living in developing countries have a right to move to developed ones, on humanitarian grounds, or on a historical view that all the problems in developing countries are ultimately attributable to developed ones. Regardless of the merits of this, in practice, it seems to imply something like: "lawlessness for me, and not for thee."
Previously, this wasn't an acute issue because the GOP had neoliberal attitudes towards migration and was happy to use it as a political issue and then ignore actually doing anything about it. Now with Trump's second term, they are turning to the same lawlessness to pursue an opposite policy. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
One party wants to not enforce immigration law. The other wants to not enforce environmental regulations, etc. Local governments openly state they won't enforce federal laws, and will indeed actively use resources to inhibit federal law enforcement in lawful activities. Apparently, as long as you think you're right, you can do what you want.
Obviously, duty to the law (including its spirit) is not absolute, but neither should it become negligible, with the law merely becoming an instrument in power battles. The pardoning of [I]all[/I] January 6th rioters, even those on video commiting obvious crimes, who communicated their intent prior to the event, is another great example.
Nature abhors a vacuum, so when legislatures cannot give laws when needed, we either get an all powerful executive (against the principles of modern constitutions) or else lawlessness.
Agreed. Part of my frustration and eventual break with the Democrats is that I have been pulling my hair out since 2016 trying to make them realize they are creating their own monster. Now that it has happened, I can't say I feel much sympathy. Hopefully they get their act together soon, but I highly doubt it.
If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally, I don't have a problem with people breaking the law to shield them from deportation, as long as it's done peacefully. Ours is a monstrous system that ruthlessly exploits these people to keep prices down and then turns on a dime and scapegoats them when things get "tough" (coddled Americans think a five cent increase in gas prices is "tough"). Sometimes the law is unjust and shouldn't be followed.
The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.
There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any.
It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.
But that's also true when the Nazis ask you where the Jew is hiding. You lie to the Gestapo, right? But it's possible the Jew is a serial killer or some other monstrous criminal and he really should be taken in. You still break the law and try and shield him, because the odds are he's not.
You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down.
This isn't clear to me.
Ideally, one should not bow to the wicked (immoral, excuse me). Of course, in practice, just as you mention in the example, people have children and they care about them and their well-being (allegedly, it's a psychological attachment, children die every day and no tears are shed but for one's own, so) and so in the end ultimately act on what's best for their own well-being and that of their family, whether it's right or not (ie. obeying authority who can take everything from you, regardless).
Say you're starving, your kids are starving, you see a loaf of bread that clearly doesn't belong to you. Do you take it, or do you die on a moral hill with your children clinging to you in tears in their last moments? It may not be an easy choice for many, but it damn sure is a consistent one. People look out for #1. Always. Never fails.
Quoting RogueAI
I've heard reports that the smugglers do in fact lie to people and say "oh everything's fine, you can do this, they won't do anything" when they in fact know it to be a lie. So yes, innocent people were misled by terrible people. And unfortunately these terrible people are outside of the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. government and so cannot be captured or killed. For now.
In short, I don't think an earnest father or mother would willingly put their kids in danger and turmoil, despite the fact they have. It wasn't their fault. That we can agree on.
But one thing, an unpopular fact, must be noted. Reproducing is literally the easiest, cheapest thing any living being can do. It's second nature. An immoral man who has convinced (or perhaps forced) a woman into spawning offspring does not make him any different than what he was before, an immoral man who is undesired by moral society. So what. Should we take their children and give them a better life? Will you invest your time and money to raise them? You can, you know. Some of us are busy with our own lives. Life is cruel. Life is indeed cruel. But like I mentioned before, people like to grandstand, but at the end of the day, when the cameras aren't rolling, you can bet the bank #1 is looked out for above any other living being or soul.
"Self" is a dominant interest in human affairs. I was going to call "self" an "overriding interest", but that is too extreme. If, indeed, people only looked out for #1, life would be a lot crueler than it already is. Maybe not often enough, but many people sacrifice a percentage of self interest--smaller & larger--for those they love or for causes to which they are deeply committed.
I understand migrants move to improve their lives, but migrating from one country to another is an inherently risky project -- even under very good circumstances. Migrating and entering illegally, migrating with the help of human traffickers, coyotes (guides), migrating through hazardous terrain (Darian Pass, deserts, mountains, etc.), and so on puts children at risk. Being here illegally with an "anchor baby" (child born in the US to illegal immigrants) places the child at risk of future disadvantages and the possibility of their parents being removed.
But moving from a place where opportunities are minimal to another place where they are more plentiful is a gamble. Many of our decisions in life are gambles; more often we lose than we win. If we're lucky, we don't lose too much too often!
Quoting Outlander
Reproducing is relatively cheap for the man. That's true pretty much across the biological board. I don't know for what percentage of pregnancies sex was not at least somewhat agreed by the woman. Humans like sex--men and women both -- especially when it's done well. That doesn't mean we like raising children.
Well, being pessimistic about it - sure you won't see a realistic way forward.
I don't see a realistic way forward on many, if not most, philosophical issues, but we keep coming here and discussing them.
The realistic way forward for any philosophical idea is to actually start practicing it by not voting for Democrats and Republicans and to make your arguments to open-minded people you meet. I think that if an Independent had a decent showing in an election many people will start to jump on the bandwagon, as voting against the two-party system would be the new Progressive "call to arms".
I might have agreed before 2016, but the powers that be have shown they will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.
The powers that be are not preventing you from pulling the lever for an alternate candidate nor preventing you from speaking your mind to others. The only way they could interfere with that is to control the elections and the internet - in which case we don't live in a democracy or representative republic, but an oligarchy that controls the flow of information.
I believe this to be the case.
And thus this is the result. Stephen Miller has had to frantically push ICE to do everything possible to create the image that somehow the Trump administration is truly deporting the millions of illegal immigrants as TACO has promised. And attempt to federalize the Nation Guard.
The good thing is that I'm seeing a lot of US Flags in the "No Kings" demonstrations. That's a good thing, and a way to fight TACO Trump and cut the nonsense nativist and racist arguments their wings off.
[Quote="Trump Shifts Deportation Focus, Pausing Most Raids on Farms, Hotels and Eateries; https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/us/politics/trump-ice-raids-farms-hotels.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PE8.nozm.Sp2H_E2UB2mB&smid=url-share"] The Trump administration has abruptly shifted the focus of its mass deportation campaign, telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to largely pause raids and arrests in the agricultural industry, hotels and restaurants, according to an internal email and three U.S. officials with knowledge of the guidance.
The decision suggested that the scale of President Trumps mass deportation campaign an issue that is at the heart of his presidency is hurting industries and constituencies that he does not want to lose.
The new guidance comes after protests in Los Angeles against the Trump administrations immigration raids, including at farms and businesses. It also came as Mr. Trump made a rare concession this week that his crackdown was hurting American farmers and hospitality businesses.[/quote]
That didn't take long to surface. If ICE pulled the entire migrant workforce it would have massive economic downsides.
Agreed, though this seems incredibly short sighted on their part imo with the looming automation and AI revolution currently happening around us. We're headed for great depression style unemployment in the next few decades, and they're actively making the problem worse. How I wish we weren't ruled by clueless octogenarians.
That's not why Biden essentially allowed an open border to fester. The Biden admin wasn't that strategic. Many Democrats had come to believe the Trump admin's border policies were racist, and this led the online far left to reflexively oppose ANY immigration enforcement on Biden's part. The Biden admin thought they couldn't risk losing this segment of the party, so they let it define immigration policy, which turned out to be a mistake.
Hits hard.
I think the idea that we should taken politicians seriously, morally, is a joke. Absolute joke. It leads to the types of discussions going on in the lounge with several members here clearly losing their rationality on the subject.
Not just that, but those migrants are going to get old too someday.
What is ironic is that many of the same people that vote for an octogenarian also label themselves as "progressive".
It's a difficult conclusion to come to in today's world, but I believe a necessary one. Too often the road to hell is paved with good campaign promises.
Get old without government support or proper cultural assimilation, at that. A recipe for disaster.
It's frustrating that the only progressive issues people seem to care about anymore are strictly social instead of class or economic.
That is what I mean by group-hate as a product of political parties. Their hate of anyone that does not follow the party line clouds their judgement, and they often go by their own party's characterization of the opposition rather than actually making an effort to understand the opposition.
I can't say I know much on the logistics of this topic, I can only speak on the morality of the situation - or lack thereof. I apologize beforehand if I'm missing anything of importance or if my sleep deprived mind scrambles things up.
In debates such as this, we must consider all sides of the argument. On one hand, there is good reason to get rid of illegal immigrants - to my understanding, most countries do as illegal immigration can be quite problematic for both the country of immigration and the citizens of said country (think of taxes and potential job loss). On the other hand, we must consider the reason behind said immigration, even if illegal. Mexico isn't the best of countries to live in, especially if you're of low social standing. Not everyone coming from Mexico is a dog eating rapist, some of them have legitimate reasons to come here, despite what others think of it (family members like fathers or older brothers will come here to work and then go back to Mexico to provide for their families because we have a better economy than they do).
Circumstance and consequence aside, we must also take into account what is happening to these illegal immigrants. Logically speaking, it'd make sense to send them back to Mexico, but then you have the argument that they may just come back. The next best thing then would be to find a way to keep them out then. This is why they are sent to a foreign prison. However, accounts of the prison's in El Salvador aren't flattering in the slightest, including "cases of torture, ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, severe violations of due process and inhumane conditions, such as lack of access to adequate healthcare and food", according to a Human Rights Watch report on the matter. We must also take into account, not everyone sent to CECOT is necessarily an illegal immigrant, there are legal citizens there - some of them being children (by the way, CECOT is technically an adult prison).
With matters of what is happening out of the way, what about what's not happening? First of all, people sent there wrongly are not being sent back. We are not getting much - if any - information on all that going on at CECOT. There's also a certain amount of double standard here. There are illegal immigrants that aren't from Mexico, South America, and Central America. There are a good 500,000 European illegal immigrants that aren't getting rounded up alongside their Hispanic counterparts.
I try to keep in mind that every situation has multiple sides, multiple faces. We each have a choice to pick a side to look at. What I've found in my analysis of this situation is that the only way people accept what's going on is they either don't know the full scope of the situation (understandable, there are people who don't pay attention to stuff like this because they find it depressing - there are also those who watch false news sources without even realizing), or they are informed and actively choose to ignore the warning signs and truth.
Something like this though, at the end of the day, is generally viewed as wrong and immoral. At the very least it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. If you know your history, you know what this looks like - and there are differences, sure, but this goes a bit too far to be looked at as something completely different than what the Nazis in the early days of and before the camps. Reasoning may be different, and there aren't mass killings - yet. But that doesn't make it right.
HRW report
I don't know if it's true or just the ramblings of this administration, but....
But at least there seems to be hope that Stephen Miller went simply too far by demanding the 3000 arrests per day quota, and ICE has to back down from random searches. So there are hopeful signs:
That the Trump administration gives out very confusing and opposing signals only shows the chaotic behavior of this dysfunctional administration.
- Having a leader who exerts significant influence and receives near unwavering loyalty.
-An "Us vs Them" mentality, as seen between MAGA and anyone that doesn't agree with them (such as democrats, liberals, the LGBTQ+ community, etc.).
-Isolation against friends, family, and/or outsiders. I'd say this ties into the "Us vs Them" mentality in this situation.
-Control over members, thoughts, actions, beliefs, and/or lives.
-Obedience from members.
-Manipulation of any kind.
-Financial exploitation, pretty much asking members to give up money and/or possessions.
-Suppression of doubt as seen when people who question Trump's ideas, actions, or agenda are silenced and/or ignored.
-Fear and paranoia. We could see early in Trump's campaign that he was spreading fear and paranoia, as you said with the immigrants. He's also ramped up fear, or at the very least more misunderstanding and/or hate against transgender people and the LGBTQ+ community.
-General abuse and exploitation of members
I can even go further as to say that what's happening isn't because of the democratic system in place. One would think that if we really wanted to, we could stop Trump by impeaching him at the very least. However, the issue with this is that he has the power. Trump came into office with an overall federal government trifecta - meaning he has Republicans in the majority of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. I'm not saying that they'll all support him - not all Republicans are MAGA, but they may very well support his interests due to affiliation.
Hopefully this is the first of many moments they realize that things aren't being done quite right in the administration.
Obama ~5.3 million 20092017
Trump 1 1.93.13 million 20172021
Biden >4.6 million 20212024
Quoting MrLiminal
It's not clear what "the problem" is.
Is it crime?
But multiple studies and comprehensive data show that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born US citizens at the national, state and local levels. Incarceration rates confirm this pattern (1,221 per 100,000 vs. 613 per 100,000 in 2023).
Job displacement?
Illegal immigrants tend to fill low-wage, labor-intensive jobs that are unattractive. They may have a small negative wage effect but overall impact on employment and wages are either minimal or slightly positive due to additional growth and job creation through their own demand. Agriculture, construction and hospitaly heavily rely on immigrant labour (including undocmented workers).
Mooching of the state?
They tend to pay billions in taxes and not receive benefits. Fear of deportation discourages them from reporting crimes, seeking medical care or particiapting in civic life. Relating this to your mention of "robust social programs, job security in the face of automation/AI, social cohesion and UBI", we can rest assured we can have them pay for the privilege to remain without getting benefits.
What's left?
Feel free to add.
I think many government employees do realize how dysfunctional this administration is. It was surprising just how same the story was told during the last Trump administration by various commentators and reporters made out of it.
The simple fact is that Donald Trump is a great populist orator for his supporters, but a truly inept leader. His past failed businesses show this clearly. The only difference between this Trump administration and the previous administration is that this one is filled with lackeys and loyalists while the previous one did have Washington professional who tried to curb the most excesses of Trump. The fact is that Trump now will try to make his things, then fail, and then these failures are simply forgotten as the next crisis comes through the door.
And likely (hopefully) this is the outcome. Stephen Miller will get his ass kicked by the negative response to these kind of totally random operation on the street will have. I assume the ICE professionals do understand just how detrimental to the public image these kind of operations are, but naturally have to follow what the Trump crazies in the administration tell them to do.
The likeliest outcome is that ICE raids will tone down, be something not in your face but the normal operations that under previous administrations were done will prevail. And Trump's fantasies of deporting many millions of illegals will whimper and fade away just like the idea of Canada joining the US. Or the US annexing Greenland. People around Trump will just shut up about them and the discourse will be the next real crisis at hand.
The thing that is very consistent with Trump is that in the great dramatic things he wants to do, he will utterly fail in doing.
You have to do some dilligence here: That is exactly how it looks from the otherside. Most people feel (and people like myself fall in here - who are decidedly left-wing in a box-ticking sense, and have never voted right of center in their lives) feel that there is a quite clear, and inarguable ideological situation in which disagreeing with any aspect of a rather complicated set of policy settings around LGBTQI+ etc... issues is somehow tantamount to being a disgusting bigot, and one must be ostracised, humiliated and made to feel as if they are somehow responsible for others mental health. Which is utter, abject horseshit and rests largely on the 'feelings' of some young, mentally unstable people.
So, I'm not dismissing that your take is hte case for those who take the ideology on hook-line-sinker. But for those who even tacitly disagree, there is some serious consequence mirroring fascist dictates far more readily than any disagreement with right-wing rhetoric seems to cause. That's a bit of a nuance convo though, as you're tyring to have about immigration specifically.
I just do not accept your assertions, and I am beyond tired of hearing any opposition to illegal immigration as racist. The figures you are quoting are put out by the very people who stand to benefit from the system as it exists. If it's such a universal good, why was Greg Abbott able to bring the north to its knees with a few busses? It's to the point where I am forced to assume people use the accusation of racism only because there is no actual stronger argument below the surface, while they tacitly benefit from what is essentially an indentured servant class that disenfranchises local workers.
Also, "they commit fewer crimes," and "they are afraid of reporting crimes" seems contradictory.
Just imagine how tired I am of people denying it when the proof is in the pudding. Funny how only Latinos are targeted no?
Yep.
When I googled images "ICE going after Latino people", I got this photo:
When I googles images "ICE going after Dutch people", I got this photo:
Either the algorithms have to learn more, or Dutch people aren't really targeted by ICE. :wink:
I will admit, I get a bit heated on this topic due to prior experiences, so I would like to be more fair. I don't like that racists are getting off on this, and I do think the current administration is taking things too far. I didn't vote for them either. I just don't see any good options going forward on this issue, but I am willing to hear alternative solutions. So often the alternative just feels like advocating for an underclass, which hardly seems better.
So we are only left to take people off the streets and in our homes if they are suspected of at most merely not having the right paper work. I'm not talking about gang members or those who evade taxes. I'm talking about those whose only difference between you and them is that they don't have a citizenship; that is it. Quick results require blunt tactics which is what ICE is providing.
Morality or precise legislation was never meant to come into these sorts of discussions which is the fallacy that those other individuals in this thread are propagating.
It's also rather disingenuous of you to start shouting out this mantra of, ". . . but it's not the party I voted for!" Even though you and I in being in this nation are in some respect culpable of whatever pain/suffering that follows if we sit idle. Best to make your piece with the inevitable and blunt tactics of the current party in a stoic fashion.
If you really thought that. . .
Quoting MrLiminal
Then you wouldn't be posting here and neither would I.
Protests, riots, and this moral grandstanding is without substance. Perhaps we are then only left with a form of accelerationism which already seems rather well instated.
Mostly when I say too far I mean they are using showy but ineffective methods by only going after individuals (and sometimes getting it wrong) instead of the ones hiring and transporting them. I'm also not crazy about giving the Feds even more power. But also, what do you want me to do, start a revolution by myself over something I'm mixed on? I may not fully agree with how it's being done, but part of me is glad *something* is being done. My feelings are ultimately somewhat conflicted, but that usually just gives people an avenue to discredit you on the internet.
I feel like I answered that already by saying I did not agree with the assessment that illegal immigration is harmless. There are many knock-on effects that aren't always apparent but are obvious to anyone that has lived with it. A good example is education: no one is being served well by having a glut of students in public school who do not speak the native language that divert already thin attention and resources. The immigrant students will almost always lag behind due to the difficulty of the language barrier, and it further increases already large classroom sizes with students who need special resources to learn. I have seen it first hand, both as a student and as an adult working alongside education. And again, if it's such a universal benefit, why was Abbott's bus campaign the most effective political stunt in decades?
The concern about strains on public services, like schools, is a reasonable one. Rapid demographic changes can place pressure on institutions that are already underfunded or poorly managed. In education specifically, accommodating students who are not fluent in the native language does require additional resources: ESL teachers, individualized learning plans, etc. If those resources arent available or are spread too thin, both immigrant and native-born students can suffer. Thats a real issue, especially in under-resourced communities.
But that said, this concern is not unique to undocumented immigration. Refugees, documented immigrants and even internal migration (e.g. families moving from poorer to wealthier districts) can have similar effects. So the policy question becomes: is the problem the presence of undocumented immigrants, or the lack of adequate investment and planning in public infrastructure?
This is where things get more difficult. Lets assume the worry is valid: classroom overcrowding, limited resources, unequal outcomes. The question is then whether deportation resolves this problem in a fair, effective or proportionate way.
Here are a few counterpoints to consider:
Systemic underfunding is the deeper issue. Many public schools are overwhelmed even in areas with low immigration. Removing immigrants doesnt solve the political failure to fund education adequately. It simply scapegoats a visible population for a structural problem.
Educational investment in immigrant children pays long-term dividends. Children are not a burden indefinitely; many go on to become tax-paying adults, often outperforming peers once language barriers are overcome. Deporting them interrupts that process and increases long-term costs (both economic and moral).
Deportation is a blunt instrument. It doesnt target those who are demonstrably harming public institutions. It removes people, including long-settled families, children born or raised in the country and productive members of society, based on legal status alone, not impact. That raises ethical and practical concerns.
Youre right that Abbott's buses were a highly effective political stunt in terms of media attention. But political success doesnt equate to policy wisdom. It worked in the sense that it forced liberal cities to confront their rhetoric with real logistical challengesbut it also highlighted the failure of coordinated federal response and treated vulnerable people as props in a political game. That it was effective doesnt mean it proved anything about the harms or benefits of immigration.
Its fair to worry about real-world consequences of immigration. But to justify deportation, wed need to show that it solves more problems than it creates, does so fairly and addresses the root causes of institutional strain. More often, deportation treats symptoms while ignoring systemic failures.
I also disagree on your assessment of the bus campaign. It worked because northern cities got a tiny taste of the issues the south has been dealing with for decades, and it nearly broke them. The fact that they changed their tune so quickly with only a fraction of the problem coming their way should show that this IS in fact a major problem and racism is not the primary factor.
I would also argue this is fixing systemic failures, as we have allowed this to be a problem since at least the 80s. People have been trying to take the compassionate route since before I was born and it's only made it worse. I do not believe we ever have to justify deporting people who are here illegally, and the fact that you think we do means we will probably not agree on this.
People are not crossing the border into the United States by taking a bus to Nuevo Laredo and strolling across the bridge to Texas.
In many cases they have paid traffickers to deliver them to somewhere along the border, and then it is up to the migrant to figure out how to get the rest of the way. A lot of the territory along the US-Mexican border is hot, dry, and sparsely populated. One can get stranded and die fairly easily. A similar situation exists for migrants attempting to get to Europe or from France to the UK.
True enough, the US is a ready market for the labor of illegal aliens created by employers who want cheap. exploitable, expendable labor. It may be that cut-rate pay scales in the US are better than where they came from, but it is easier to hire "gut suckers" in poultry slaughter plants among aliens than among Americans. It isn't that Americans don't want to work (as conservative Americans are fond of saying): it's that Americans don't want to work at substandard wages in dangerous working conditions with no benefits, no protection, and no security. Campbell Soup used to employ Americans as gut suckers (nobody thought it was a great job) before millions of illegal aliens arrived.
Exploitated illegal workers on hog and beef disassembly lines, run a higher speeds now than they were formerly, can expect to be injured seriously at least once a year unless they are lucky. Workmen's compensation? Nope--not covered. Disability coverage? Nope. Health insurance? There's the local E. R.
Hospitals are required to provide care in Emergency Rooms. That doesn't mean they are compensated for the care. Free care drives up operating costs; driven up high enough, and the ER service will be closed to protect the hospital as a whole.
Granted, illegal immigrants have established themselves as valuable workers in the economy--especially valuable because they are low paid, exploited, lack most protections legal immigrants and citizens receive, and are expendable. No unemployment costs to pay!