Vance explains the Trump administration’s deportation policy – as of now
It sounds a little bitty bit like Mitt Romney’s (yes, that Mitt Romney) “self-deportation” plan:
Romney suggested his administration would make it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs, which would in turn lead them to seek work elsewhere.
More to the point, it has echoes of what Trump was saying during his 2016 campaign. Actually, he said a lot of things back then as a beginner feeling his way towards a policy during the 2016 campaign:
Donald Trump and his top aides have spent the last two weeks sowing confusion about what the status of the country’s 12 million illegal immigrants would be under a Trump administration. Would they all be deported, as Trump argued last year? Or would some have to go while others would be allowed to stay, as Trump has hinted in the “softening” of his position in recent days? …
First, Trump announced that he will aggressively move to deport criminal illegal immigrants — that is, immigrants who have committed crimes beyond the act of entering the country illegally. “We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement,” Trump said. …
… Trump [also made a] statement that those here illegally would have “one route and only one route” to legal status … Everybody seeking legalization would have to leave and then return.
But then, a few short paragraphs later, Trump said that “in several years,” when tough enforcement measures are fully in place — not contemplated, not in the planning stage, but actually up and running — then “we will be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain.”
So, as an old boyfriend of mine used to say, clear as mud. Then again, I think it was made intentionally unclear, and the same is true today. I’m not even saying that in a critical way. I simply think the problem of illegal immigration is so huge and so complex at this point that it makes sense to do the most important part first and then see if there’s a next step and what it would be. As Vance describes.
I think Trump is more serious about it now and also more aware of the difficulties. And I think the leftist fantasy of an expulsion of 20 million people is just that, a fantasy.
Oh, and back in 2012 – which, granted, was a long time ago – Trump criticized Romney’s “self-deportation” idea:
Donald Trump on Monday said Mitt Romney’s “maniacal” and “crazy” policy of “self-deportation,” alienated Asian and Hispanic voters and helped cost him the election. …
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the real estate mogul-turned-reality TV star said.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump added. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
I think Vance’s response is a pretty realistic and reasonable way to discuss this issue. 20+ million people is indeed a colossal number, and deporting every last one of them is neither politically or logistically feasable in the 18 month window of time Trump may have for such a task before midterms and a potential loss of one or both houses. So you have to prioritize things. Just because something is difficult to do doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
I was thinking about this last night; not that I have any great insight.
Rounding up and deporting all the criminal aliens is a big job and should be the number one priority. Just breaking up TDA would be a huge benefit. The difference in deporting criminals versus the Democratic coddling of such would be a stark contrast even if it takes up until the next election; which it very well may.
From article:
Wise first move, IMHO. Get the gangs of criminals out first—along with the know felons.
neo:
I agree. The immigration problems have been around for decades (?) so there is no quick solutions. Get those criminal gangs out first—they can quickly become a nightmare…
I’d say you always fish where the fish are. We know where Tren de Aragua live. We know where the duck-eating Haitians are. We know where the “sanctuary cities” have housed their illegals. Start there. Prove you mean it and watch the inflow stop. Then every time you catch one breaking the law, out they go. Slow and steady wins the race.
You don’t have to throw out all 20 million in one heave. Just start.
Illegal immigration is not at all complex. The appearance of a complex problem is due to our laws that by design do nothing about preventing illegals from being employed.
It is currently illegal to check anyone’s legal status before you hire them. (Ask anyone who works in HR.) That would be the simplest thing, right? The first line of defense: why can’t I check documents first and then hire from those who have real documents? No different from an interview or any other part of the process of screening employees. But to check THIS is, for SOME REASON, illegal.
It is perfectly legal to hire an illegal alien: it HAS to be, because you are not allowed to check their status before you have actually hired them. It’s up to the Federal government to accept or reject their documents, and it is up to the employee to work with the Federal government about their status. If you fire someone while they are in that process, you are liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
E-Verify does not change any of this. E-Verify does give you the opportunity to fire someone that E-Verify cannot confirm but you are not legally required to do so, and you of course had to hire them before you could even check them in E-Verify. E-Verify does not stop one illegal from being hired, by design.
The reason the US has a problem with illegal immigration is because it is so easy for illegals to get jobs, because our laws by design are unenforceable. You try working illegally in Canada, see how far you get.
Every gas station and grocery store has the technology to instantly check if a credit card is real. There is no reason why every place of work cannot have basically the same technology to check if driver’s licences and Social Security cards are real. But Social Security cards are just paper, like it was 1940, and any state can grant driver’s licenses to illegals if they wish; at least three on the Pacific Coast do so routinely and register them to vote at the same time.
The system is this way because powerful people want it to be this way.
“Out they go” ain’t the answer. Many cross and recross our heretofore Southern “border”, and have done so for decades. Chain-gang incarceration to fix our broken highways will be a real deterrent!
Niketas:
The political complexity is a big part of the complexity to which I refer, and the human complexity involved in having 20 million illegal immigrants here is the result of the politics and the resultant laws and their enforcement or non-enforcement. What to do with the 20 million at this point is complex on all levels.
@neo: What to do with the 20 million at this point is complex on all levels.
It is really very simple. If they can’t work, and can’t get benefits, they will make their way home, much more easily than they made their way here. They would not have come in the first place if they couldn’t work and couldn’t get benefits. They will not sit here and starve, or they would have done that in their own country.
Very few people know how our laws actually work, and most of them THINK they work very differently. “Mandatory E-Verify” is trotted out on the Right over and over. Not one person who says this seems to know what E-Verify actually does, which is nothing–and everyone who has ever processed a new hire in an E-Verify shop, tens of thousands of people, DO know that E-Verify does nothing. E-Verify’s training materials tell you that, anyone can go read them.
All these think tanks studying the “problem” of illegal immigration have processed new hires and put them through the employment eligibility verification process. They all know you cannot refuse to hire someone because you think they might be illegal. But this is all carefully kept out of the narrative, which is full of distractions about the difficulty of rounding up 20 million people for forced deportation.
There are too many Congressmen and Senators who do not want to see illegal immigration stopped, and they simply lie to us, and our media lets them get away with it.
The REAL ID requirements of 2005 have been waived and delayed for almost 20 years. Which elected or appointed officials keep making that happen? No curiosity, neither in the Left-leaning media nor in the Right.
Niketas:
You are caught in the legal issues and are ignoring the reaction of the public to the human ones, including the fact that most of the illegals who’ve been here a long time – which is the bulk of the 20 million or however many people are involved – have families born here, who are citizens.
@neo:you are ignoring the reaction of the public
…to a carefully crafted narrative designed to make a simple problem seem hard. I am bringing up inconvenient facts that so people will question the narrative they are being sold.
Most people think employers can screen out illegals, maybe using E-Verify, before they hire them. Most people don’t know this is illegal and not how E-Verify works. If they did, they might wonder who’s behind these laws, and demand they be held accountable and the laws be changed.
Most people don’t know that REAL ID was passed in 2005 and every deadline that comes up, it gets delayed, most recently until May 2025. If they did know, they might wonder who’s behind the lack of enforcement of the law, and demand they be held accountable and that the law be enforced.
There may be lots of establishment Republicans inconvenienced by the public seeing through the narrative. That’s a bummer. In terms of votes, though, curbing illegal immigration is a no-brainer. But in terms of powerful interests, it’s a non-starter. Hence the false narratives, and the attempt to focus us on sob stories and not what the actual problems are.
As for illegals with citizen relatives, that’s a bummer. Maybe they shouldn’t have come illegally. It’s also a bummer when people with citizen relatives have to go to prison. It’s also a bummer when legal immigrants, who followed all the laws, have to go home despite having citizen relatives.
And if we’re talking about citizen children of illegals, the pejorative “anchor baby” is a powerful counter-narrative; this is not something the public approves of.
https://thehill.com/latino/4984064-trump-administration-workplace-raids/
The Hill probably thinks they’re gaining brownie points by scaring leftists with this headline, all the while normies are enjoying a rollicking applause.
@ Niketas Choniates
That was so outrageous – had to look it up myself. No wonder the immigration problems have gone on for decades!?! Will watch to see if Trump figures that out…
8 Questions Employers Aren’t Allowed to Ask You
Guess Republicans helped to make up that list since it is apparently OK to ask if someone has been arrested…
Work on getting the criminal gangs out…hopefully Trump will also work on fixing that “Are You a U.S. Citizen?” problem. DEMs make an issue of that – broadcast it 24/7 so as to attract more black voters in 2026…
“border czar” Tom Homan looks like the guy who can get it moving faster…another good looking pick by Trump…
The laws about immigration and employment status are much like the no-voter-ID laws that the Dems favor, and they favor them for the same reason: they want a system where breaking the law is impossible to prevent, prove, or punish, because they want people to be able to break the law. For example, they cynically trot out sob stories of people who were turned away from the polls for this or that reason, and try to pretend that’s broadly representative.
We’re able to detect this strategy when it comes to voting, and we’re able to detect it when it comes to illegal immigration.
I personally think we on the Right should be calling this out, just as we do with how the Dems want our elections to work.
@Karmi:That was so outrageous – had to look it up myself.
Thank you for looking it up. I am gratified by your reaction, because it’s an example of what I’m talking about. Most people don’t know and if they did they would feel very differently about the issue. And this is why Left, the media, and the establishment Right try to confuse the issue.
E-Verify says the same on their web page:
You must hire the illegal before you are even allowed to check if they are illegal.
Photos, fingerprinting, and DNA samples should be a requirement for the “exit interview” with everything scanned into a database. Use the facial scanning software at all of the borders to catch and quickly send them back.
We also need a max security prison to send some of these criminals to serve their sentences if convicted of a major crime (murder, sex trafficking, rape, terrorizing).
I hope that Holman gets a good budget to work with – perhaps all the funds for housing, food, education, phones, etc that we give to the illegals would be a good start. And, since this is part of Homeland Security, I hope that Trump selects a Secretary who will support Holman’s actions.
A final point – they need to come up with a better term than “czar”. Who started using that term – a democrat or a republican? For all the dislike about Russia, why use one of their terms?
I pretty much agree with Niketas Choniates. I think if we make it increasingly difficult, and ultimately impossible, for illegals to secure gainful employment, the situation will resolve itself. The means of accomplishing this, as Niketas points out, is not at all complex.
I was good friends with a renown British military historian — a graduate of Sandhurst, no less, and a recipient of multiply literary awards — who ran into trouble with his residency status due to a series of visa-related bureaucratic screw-us and red-tape. He had been teaching at a prestigious U.S.university but had to return to the UK and re-apply for his visa. He did so, only to be told that he would have to pay a punitive and very large fee to obtain one. I told him that he should just darken his skin and walk across the southern border and proceed from there. Problem solved! He laughed, somewhat bitterly. He never came back to the U.S., not even to claim another writing award he had received. He was banned from entering the U.S. until he resolved the situation as stipulated, and he was unwilling to pay the requisite fee, which he felt (rightly, in my opinion) was grossly excessive and unjust.
Sadly (for me, at any rate), I never saw him again before he passed.
I think you all see what I’m getting at with this little story . . .
IrishOtter:
That is exactly what Romney was referring to in 2012 with his policy of “self-deporation.” And in 2016, Carly Fiorina was advocating the same thing, if memory serves me. It’s not new, but it’s never happened even though it is supposedly illegal to employ then now.
Enforcement is the problem – at least, it has been the problem. We’ll see if that part will be fixed.
neo:
The point I was trying to make, however circuitously, was that if illegals can’t find work and support themselves, they’ll leave. It follows that in order for that to happen, certain protocols must be established — and enforced. The best way, perhaps the only way, to ensure enforcement is to impose tough and painful sanctions on employers who flout the rules and hire illegals.
If that means increasing the number of ICE agents to monitor companies that typically hire illegals, so be it.
Not really so different from the IRS hiring thousands of new agents to audit American citizens, is it?
Also, the money illegals send to their families in the old country should be heavily taxed.
Good point about discarding “Czar”.
I’m for going back further: call ’em Border Caesar, or, further stll, Border Basileus.
Niketas Choniates has the right of it. The criminal illegals can be jailed and expelled. The problem of illegal immigration only seems difficult because powerful interests want it to be just the way it is and the US citizens they propagandize to are bleeding heart fools. Mandatory jail terms for employers of illegals = no jobs. No benefits + no jobs = self-deportation.
“Chain-gang incarceration to fix our broken highways will be a real deterrent!”
Bull…I don’t want to pay to house, feed, guard, medicate & bury another bloody illegal. Here illegally & break the law you go far far away. And make illegal re-entry deportation a capital offense.
The government literally has a paper trail to many illegals. Prosecute for use of stolen Social Security numbers.
How about prosecuting them for entering and staying in the country illegally?
Start out picking the low hanging fruit. Screen all incarcerated persons for entry status. If illegal, out they go, immediately or at completion of sentence (not counting probation or parole). They never walk free north of the border.
Pull federal funding for all agencies resisting these or other deportation efforts. If that does not get their attention criminally prosecute those violating or conspiring to violate immigration laws. This would include NGOs who feed and house illegals. We will be in control of both houses… make use of it while it’s there: change the laws.
The self-deportation movement would slowly start to materialize.
If they don’t turn back at the border (coming in) arrest them and hold them for violation of US law. Authorize local law enforcement to enforce those laws as well.
Nice Guy approach has not worked. Its time to put on the big-boy pants and play hardball.
sdferr,
I don’t know. Kaiser Wilhelm II wasn’t a good custodian of the title, “Caesar.” Probably shouldn’t try to resurrect it.
sdferr mentioned:
It’s pleasingly cute, but it just seems to me that going all the way to ‘Basileus’ is a little too presumptuous. Maybe something a little more subdued… Border Sebastocrator or something. 🙂
A final point – they need to come up with a better term than “czar”. Who started using that term – a democrat or a republican?
liz:
I thought it was Jimmy Carter for appointing James Schlesinger as “energy czar.”
Turns out it goes back to Woodrow Wilson:
__________________________
During the latter stages of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appointed financier Bernard Baruch to run the War Industries Board. This position was sometimes dubbed the “industry czar”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(political_term)
__________________________
FDR went czar crazy later. See wiki link.
In a pinch we could go with Border Siezer I guess, but not have to go so far as finding a guy with the first name Sid just to end up with Sid the Border Siezer.
Tsar instead of Czar?
border boss
The immigration issue can’t be avoided. A lot of people are excited about the Trump victory for other reasons, like cleaning house at federal agencies like the FDA and USDA, ending wars, or getting rid of the Department of Education, or just stopping the woke nonsense in its tracks – but if Republicans have the presidency and the House and Senate and don’t get something done on immigration, it’ll be unforgivable to most of their supporters.
“There are too many Congressmen and Senators who do not want to see illegal immigration stopped, and they simply lie to us, and our media lets them get away with it.”
That is also why I think immigration needs to be addressed. There is probably a great deal more human trafficking going on than we realize. And a great deal more organizations that sound noble and that some of us might be inclined to be sympathetic towards, such as charities affiliated with the Catholic church and nonprofits that provide free legal representation to the poor, are doing things that are not noble at all. We might find that they are involved in covering up trafficking, are actively encouraging people to undertake the dangerous journey of migrating to the US, or at the very least are cynically opposing enforcement of immigration laws to keep funding coming. Not that such things have not been reported on at all, but I think we’re going to see a lot of proof that it is really happening and the extent to which it is happening. I suspect that, as a nation, we’re going to learn a lot of things we didn’t really want to know. The next year is going to be wild.
shadow:
I think that at least some of the changes in immigration can be accomplished through executive orders and simply through the enforcement of already-existing law.
@ John+Guilfoyle > “We know where the “sanctuary cities” have housed their illegals. Start there.”
Although I agree with your comment for the most part, I would leave the illegals in the cities that claim they want them.
Let them arrest any criminals themselves, and turn them over to ICE, when they finally get tired of suffering the consequences of their own choices.
“You don’t have to throw out all 20 million in one heave. Just start.”
As Vance said.
Start where the most damage is being done: to people who — did NOT support breaking immigration laws; have not declared themselves a sanctuary for people breaking immigration laws; want immigration laws to be reformed so that enforcing them reduces illegal immigration (thanks to Niketas for the lesson about E-Verify; I knew it was useless but now how bad); want existing laws to be enforced; want payments by the government to NGOs to incentivize and subsidize illegal immigration to stop (including using your tax dollars to FLY people here, knowing that they are fudging the laws to justify it).
The cynical behavior of Congress (both parties), government agencies, businesses, etc. to collude with each other to import “cheap labor” AFTER pricing American citizens out of the market with regulations, taxes, “benefits” and “protections” was amply covered in the post David Foster linked on the Open Thread today. RTWT including the comments.
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/72115.html
The economics is all the same tapestry; you have to look at the back to see the connections, and the people who complain about Meanie Republicans beating up on illegal immigrants are only looking at the pretty picture on the front.
“They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
As always with any policy: kind to whom?
Not to the people who lost jobs to cheaper (because exempt from the rules) labor.
Not to the people killed, murdered, robbed, raped, exploited, and despoiled of property traversed by the illegal caravans
Not to the most recent victims of the fiscal deficiencies in their social care programs, watching illegals get welfare benefits they never were given.
(It’s bad enough to have the spending on the needy wasted through graft and corruption; giving what they is to those who shouldn’t be here at all is adding insult to the injury — and may have driven some of the voters to change to Trump.)
R. Eleazar said, “Anyone who becomes merciful upon the cruel one will end by being cruel to the merciful:”
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/120596/is-this-stated-in-the-talmud
@ John+Guilfoyle > “We know where the “sanctuary cities” have housed their illegals. Start there.”
Although I agree with your comment for the most part, I would leave the illegals in the cities that claim they want them.
Let them arrest any criminals themselves, and turn them over to ICE, when they finally get tired of suffering the consequences of their own choices.
“You don’t have to throw out all 20 million in one heave. Just start.”
As Vance said.
Start where the most damage is being done: to people who — did NOT support breaking immigration laws; have not declared themselves a sanctuary for people breaking immigration laws; want immigration laws to be reformed so that enforcing them reduces illegal immigration (thanks to Niketas for the lesson about E-Verify; I knew it was useless but now how bad); want existing laws to be enforced; want payments by the government to NGOs to incentivize and subsidize illegal immigration to stop (including using your tax dollars to FLY people here, knowing that they are fudging the laws to justify it).
The cynical behavior of Congress (both parties), government agencies, businesses, etc. to collude with each other to import “cheap labor” AFTER pricing American citizens out of the market with regulations, taxes, “benefits” and “protections” was amply covered in the post David Foster linked on the Open Thread today. RTWT including the comments.
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/72115.html
The economics is all the same tapestry; you have to look at the back to see the connections, and the people who complain about Meanie Republicans beating up on illegal immigrants are only looking at the pretty picture on the front.
“They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
As always with any policy: kind to whom?
Not to the people who lost jobs to cheaper (because exempt from the rules) labor.
Not to the people killed, murdered, robbed, raped, exploited, and despoiled of property traversed by the illegal caravans
Not to the most recent victims of the fiscal deficiencies in their social care programs, watching illegals get welfare benefits they never were given.
(It’s bad enough to have the spending on the needy wasted through graft and corruption; giving more to those who shouldn’t be here at all is adding insult to the injury — and may have driven some of the voters to change to Trump.)
R. Eleazar said, “Anyone who becomes merciful upon the cruel one will end by being cruel to the merciful:”
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/120596/is-this-stated-in-the-talmud
Important to remember that the law requires employers to hire an illegal before they can check his status. It will take more than an executive order to change this, and it’s not an “enforcement” issue, because employers who hire illegals they have not checked on are following the law, not breaking it.
You cannot punish employers who followed the law.
So who would set up laws like this, and who is accountable for changing them? The answer to both questions is “Congress”. Just as Dems changed election rules to make it impossible to prevent, punish, or prove that someone voted illegally, Congress has made laws that makes it impossible for employers to avoid hiring illegals.
From the EEOC website:
A system that is not intended to work is not “broken”. It is “working” as the lawmakers intended. But they can change the law. Time for us to see to it that Republicans in Congress get their minds right.
So what is illegal? Knowingly and deliberately hiring illegals, falsifying the paperwork, etc.
Sorry about the duplicate!
“Although I agree with your comment for the most part, I would leave the illegals in the cities that claim they want them.”
Aesop…we have one set of laws. Let’s enforce them. The “sanctuary cities ” are descending quickly into shitholery. If POTUS Trump is President for all of America, shitholery should be off the table for all American cities. And no state should be allowed to openly give a huge F-you to the President just because.
Those interested in this subject area should learn about “attrition by enforcement,” which is the strategy behind “self-deportation as mentioned by several commenters above. You’ll find it covered thoroughly at the Center for Immigration Studies website: https://cis.org/search/custom?keys=%22attrition+by+enforcement%22
Briefly, the attrition policy is to systematically enforce the immigration laws whenever the occasion arises. Most typically it works this way: An illegal alien who encounters police will have his illegal presence detected and be remanded to ICE for removal. Seeing this happening as a sure thing in such encounters, large numbers of illegal aliens will depart on their own, since it’s better to do it of one’s own volition and on one’s own schedule than to have one’s life totally disrupted by a bolt out of the blue.
This isn’t just a plausible-sounding theory — it works when it’s been tried:
– Operation Wetback, in 1954, forcibly removed about 100,000 illegal aliens from the southwest. This “encouraged” another ~600,000 to leave on their own. (These numbers are rough, and more precise ones are probably hard to come by.)
– After 9/11, the INS set about removing Pakistani illegal aliens residing primarily in the Northeast. Seeing this happening, another 20,000 or so, left on their own.
– When Oklahoma implemented some illegal-alien-unfriendly legislation in the mid-2000s, many of that population left the state (some, of course, merely going to other states).
In addition, there were news stories about self-deportation soon after Trump’s first election, as illegal aliens anticipated what was likely coming. Naturally, as Trump got distracted by other matters, this partial exodus abated. But the basic idea in all cases is that illegal aliens, being humans, respond to incentives and disincentives.
I agree with Nachman, get the word out.
Trump has a great card to play, the Latino support he has. There will be extreme difficulty doing this ( for instance along the southern border you have many that work on this side and live on the other).
Steps to be taken:
1) Close the border, accommodate those above.
2) Stop the Federal funding
3) Let the “word” get out.
Not sure what it’s like to have the Law after you as an illegal immigrant, but it can be a nightmare for a criminal running from the Law.
Once turned myself in – spent that night in a 1-man cell. Was dreaming of a previous car chase (I had gotten away)—zigzagging between traffic—zigzagging thru neighborhood streets with the Law close on my arse, when suddenly something strange was headed right towards me ‘n me towards it – Oh Sh*t – I’ma gonna crash! Woke up sweating, back was arched up high from feet to head, arms outstretched to limit the crash impact, and hands tightly grasping the jail-cell bars at the head of bunk!?
Felt relieved to realize I was in that jail-cell and had just woke up from a nightmare. Anyway, a lot of these illegals ain’t real felony type of criminals…many are just people wanting a better life, and not wanting to be constantly looking over their shoulder for the Law—looking for them. Keep feeding the media horror stories of how the Law is searching everywhere for them… 🙂
What I would like to see, though trying to compile such a series of comparisons would no doubt be extremely arduous, is an across-the-board comparison of Democratic Party/“Biden” “statistics”/“facts”/“claims”/“contentions”/“INFORMATION” emanating from all those Federal Alphabet agencies (and “Biden” policies) that were in fact WEAPONIZED against the Truth, against the Law, against the Republican Party (as well as non-compliant Democrats such as RFKJr and NYC’s Mayor Adams), against Trump and his supporters, particularly the victims of the vicious Jan. 6 op, and, most essentially, AGAINST THE COUNTRY…and presenting them, in table format, opposite the more accurate facts, together with explanations as to how those “Biden” “statistics”/“facts”/etc. were distorted, tweaked, altered and misrepresented so as to lie about, conceal, cover up INTENTIONAL malfeasance and sabotage committed by “Biden”/Democratic Party operatives and its criminal Media collusionists.
In this way, perhaps, the grim extent of “Biden”’s systematic hijacking of the country may be exposed for anyone interested in opening their eyes….
(Well, one can dream…)
There’s been good success in getting people to self-deport if you offer a carrot as well as a stick. Free transportation to their native land a a few thousand dollars will get them set up nicely in most cases.
Oops:
Along with “non-compliant Democrats”—above—I forgot to mention Tulsi Gabbard.
(And one wonders to what extent pro-Bibi Bob Menendez should also be included in this list…)
There are others, no doubt…
@ John > “we have one set of laws. Let’s enforce them.”
Actually, I agree with you on the underlying principles.
However, I don’t have a problem with giving a lower priority to clearing those law-breaking cities than to helping the places that did NOT preen and strut their virtue-signaling sanctuaries — until it started costing them.
PS Why is it that declaring a city or state as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants — breaking the actual laws — is praised by Democrats, but a state seeking to enforce the laws is somehow insurrection?
Rhetorical question, of course.
@ Karmi > “Anyway, a lot of these illegals ain’t real felony type of criminals…many are just people wanting a better life, and not wanting to be constantly looking over their shoulder for the Law—looking for them.”
If they were not here ILLEGALLY they wouldn’t have to be looking over their shoulder for the Law.
Maybe a lot, even most, of the illegals are just people wanting a better life, but they still BROKE THE LAW coming here.
If you want a better life, you can apply for LEGAL immigration (caveat: that system is broken, far too expensive, and Trump was working on fixing that the first time).
Winking at that illegality for decades is what led to where we are now, where a lot, maybe not most but a LOT, of the illegals are people who are vicious criminals, who pray on the ones “just wanting a better life,” and who cost the country billions of dollars which could have been used to help them make a better life LEGALLY, or even in their own country.
The legal immigration system is broken by design, IMO. People who are willing to make the effort, at great expense, to come legally are more likely to lean conservative (also IMO), because they are working hard to leave countries that don’t have American values, and are not beholden to the Democrats when they get here.
That last phrase is the key to why Democrats (and some Republicans) make legal immigration hard, and facilitate illegal immigration, even before they started the obscene excesses of the last four years.
/rant