Unfortunately, I see no evidence of what the headline promises here. They aren’t getting off the mat, they’re laying on it making statements. Call me when you have an actual legislative action, guys.
To me this should not be just a Democrat thing. Republicans should want workers here too. Tgeybshoukd want to solve the illegal problem by sitting up ways to get citizenship. No one should want racial profiling. I remember last time Trump did this our neighbor was deported. They confiscated his passport, which was in his glove compartment. I suspect this is happening again. There has to be a better way to do this.
“It has been helpful for me to think of what the Trump administration wants to do as not just a mass deportation agenda, which fits neatly on a poster, but rather the radical expansion of executive power that’s designed to reshape the country in terms of racial composition,” Noroña said.
Mauricio Noroña, Director of the Immigration Rights Advocacy Clinic and Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Touro University
The Democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- again! -- if they cast themselves as the Party of Illegal Immigration.
If they try to educate the American People on what "Temporary Protected Status" means and that people who have it are NOT in the country illegally, great. If they propose a way to ensure that "Temporary" means what is says, even better.
If they say that people who are awaiting adjudication of an asylum claim are not in the country illegally and come up with a plan -- like registration and tracking, quicker adjudication, and removal of people whose claims are denied, again great.
If they can come up with a way to give people in the country illegally a path to legal permanent residence without necessarily a path to citizenship like some countries have, that would be a genius move.
But if they continue to simply insist that border security and deportation of illegals are racist and that anyone who supports those things is a bigot, they'll just guarantee continued Republican victories. The American People know better.
As I understand it, being in the country illegally is a civil violation, not a criminal violation. It's like getting a parking ticket, compared to killing someone while driving drunk.
It's a technical distinction which is not politically helpful. Because most people don't understand the difference, and people react viscerally and negatively when the government cannot seem to control illegal immigration.
Addendum: I should add that another reason it's not helpful is because most people *want* illegal immigration to be a criminal offense, instead of just a civil offense.
It's part of the U.S. legal codes, though, which makes it appear criminal to me. I mean, if it were a merely civil violation, then how can the government handcuff and deport people based on a civil infraction? Most people aren't deported for parking illegally, s/ though perhaps they should be. /s
Yeah, I should have done a little more research before posting, since it's an interesting technical discussion (but I tried to argue earlier, not a helpful political distinction). Apparently, it can be both civil and criminal.
That sounds more correct to me. Otherwise you could be charged additionally for every day you stayed, which seems rather silly. Thanks for the clarification!
“The reality is Joe Biden let more than 10 million people into our country,” said Donalds. I think they pulled this number out of their rear orifice. However many immigrants did arrive during Biden's administration, our economy fared far better than any other in the world and the enlarged labor pool — especially when so many Americans had their health destroyed, died, or were forced to take time off to care for ill relatives — likely had something to do with that.
Removing those workers will have the opposite effect. States like Florida and Georgia that passed harsh anti-immigrant laws in the past already saw that trend in their agricultural economies.
To those of us who oppose unlimited illegal immigration, the economics are not the most important question. National sovereignty and our right to determine our own future is.
I oppose all illegal immigration as well. That being said, our political leaders have failed us for years by being unwilling to agree upon sensible, much-needed bipartisan immigration reform. They would rather keep it as a political cudgel, to everyone's ultimate disadvantage.
This means that under our current system, almost all legal immigration opportunities have been eliminated, and this has many more impacts than you may realize. Anti-immigrant pols look the other way while their corporate donors hire undocumented workers. In many cases, they have no alternative, as many are doing jobs Americans do not want to do. The lack of immigration reform gives those employers the power to exploit and abuse those workers. That's as much a moral and safety issue as it is an economic one.
You point out concerns about national sovereignty and borders, and I fully agree. Bipartisan immigration reform would address these, and make it possible for us to have the workers we need for our critical industries like agriculture, construction, food processing and healthcare — several of which are staffed with roughly 50% undocumented workers!
There are solutions to be had that address security, sovereignty, morality and economics, but they won't be solved without the will on both sides to solve them.
I agree with everything you've said. I strongly favor more legal immigration; notionally, I'm pretty well aligned with Matt Yglesias's idea of "One Billion Americans" within maybe two generations, maybe less.
For me, that certainly means a lot of skilled immigration, but it can also include non-skilled immigration, as long as we guarantee that it won't be at starvation wages. Americans should not be permitted to import an underpaid underclass just to have artificially low prices at the supermarket, or to support farmers whose crops don't make economic (or environmental) sense. If there are crops that cannot be raised economically in the US while paying a living wage, that for me is an indication that we should be importing them from places where they CAN be raised economically, not importing people to exploit in the US.
We should be rigorous and consistent in fulfilling our asylum obligations under international law and the treaties we have signed to shelter those who have a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" by state action or with state connivance. No one from places like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, or Myanmar should ever be deported against their will to those places, unless they come to the US under false pretenses. On the other hand, victims of natural disasters and citizens of failed states should not be considered for asylum, although Congress should always be free to grant them Temporary Protected Status, if it judges that to be warranted. Merely economic migrants who enter the country illegally under color of asylum are trying to game the system and should be ejected summarily.
I'm an immigrant myself -- an American immigrant in Brazil. Brazil is one of several countries -- I would also include Canada and Australia -- from which the United States could learn a lot to come up with a fair, welcoming system that has broad political support. Of course, the US is the world's #1 migrant target, and not every policy is scalable, but many are. It doesn't all have to be invented all over again: it's ok to copy and adapt.
Thanks for the Bloomberg info at the end b/c it's important to have actual data backing up the idea that immigrants do jobs other people won't--I think it's too easy for people to dismiss that idea as just a pro-immigration talking point, when it's not/it's supported by data..
did we not learn anything from this past election? immigration is a stinker of an issue - people (even Democrat voters) want deportations of anyone here undocumented. it's a loser of an issue and anyone seen fighting harder for people here undocumented over legal citizens is ripe to become a target in the midterms. let it go. winners make policy - losers go home with their tails between their legs.
It strikes me that you are not learning that Trump's extremism is indeed going to cause the problems expected, in which case independents may settle down about this. MAGA will not, but when food prices go up from labor shortages, etc, centrists may learn or realize that Trump's extremism on this issue is hurting the country. Also, the definition of undocumented includes people waiting on their asylum trials, they are here legally and I don't know of any Democrats who want them deported.
it strikes me you are not learning that the 'deport the undocumented' popularity is at an all time high - and that the hispanic vote (especially male) swung massively to Trump b/c of the immigration issue. given the wide spread popularity of deportations, there absolutely has to be Democrats in this mix.
Any Democrat supporting mass deportations will lose a lot of support. Mass deportation is a different kettle of fish from not letting people into the country. They are racially profiling and sweeping up citizens and documented people, not to mention legal undocumented people. Controlling the border is very different from mass deportations. I see no enthusiasm for that among independents.
It would be nice if Democratic leadership could advance beyond being 2 steps behind. The mass deportations, while terrible, are but a prelude to the arrest, disappearance, and internment of dissidents (& other undesirables). Everyone knows, it's written down, and it's been proclaimed by Trump himself for well over a year. So if our leadership is "getting off the mat to protect our [immigrant] communities" it's already too little too late. WAKE UP. Erodgan, Putin, et al. aren't advising this administration for the delectation of NYT both-siders; they're rapidly installing literal fascism.
Well, it’s about time! The Trump/Musk Billionaire Boyz, and MAGA, not only want a return to racism … but they want to force the country to join them. The Dixiecrats wholly supported segregation, but balked at demanding the rest of the country to comply.
As sad as these deportations are, a huge segment of the US population want this to some degree. This is not the topic that is going to win over enough voters.
Pretty sure people said that in the South about Civil Rights also.
People want a secure border. They don't want a police state with Puerto Ricans being arrested. They don't want raised food prices from immigrant labor disappearing. The Democrats have an obligation to CONNECT the bad results to the extreme deportations. Let's not forget it was independents who really turned the tide for Trump--and the economy is what they cared most about.
People in the South who said that about Civil Rights were wrong, because that was about the Constitutional rights of American citizens. There is no Constitutional right of immigration to the United States.
I keep saying this, but if dems in blue cities/states really want to push back against Trump's revoking of federal funding as a weapon then they should cut off gas/electricity/water to ICE buildings in their cities/states. THAT is a huge point of leverage that they have over the feds. Just because the blue city/states might have to house a federal ICE facility doesn't mean they have to service them with water/electricity/gas. Send the city inspector(s) out and shut off the pipes to federal ICE facilities as a way to get the Trump admin to start compromising. Let's see ICE organize mass deportations when they can't turn on their office computers or flush their toilets.
Under the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court cases dating back to McCulloch v. Maryland, that would be illegal and would be shut down FAST. If municipal governments in Blue states aren't perceptive enough to realize that, their State governments certainly are.
Y’know those signs in many public places about maximum capacity per fire marshal? Does exceeding that after a big round up make an ICE building illegal?
Afghan engineers for U.S. military got to US in 2021-22 and are rebuilding their lives. But Wednesday they received a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul (closed) signed only by “Chief of mission - COM (no name) saying their fully approved and vetted SIV status has been revoked!
They are given 3 months to appeal using complex series of links without names of anyone who might know about the revoke policy… scam? Musk gone wilder? Deportation to death by Taliban? Anntares@yahoo.com
Holy cow are you serious? I mentored a family last year whose dad fought with our military. My daughter now tutors one of their kids. Do you have a link to anything about this?
First, you make me proud to be American. Second, what is a Nation but segregation writ large, and the need for segregation requires understanding why people leave their homes and risk their lives to come here. We're better than them is not enough, that's why Democrats lost the last election. Until the Democrats come up with a coherent, humane plan for our borders that includes real help in fixing the problems at home, the Democratic Party will remain Republican Lite.
Disappointing--already there's a comment that negatively interprets defending against harsh immigration practices that would hurt the economy for all and would also violate the rights and safety of nonWhite citizens caught up in ethnic profiling. This topic can elicit knee-jerk emotional responses that Dems *only* care about illegal immigrants despite evidence to the contrary and the inhumane reduction of human beings to "illegals" or "aliens."
Yeah I find these comments really upsetting too. As I already responded to one, civil rights was not a winning issue in the South either. Should they have just given up? Not to mention this WILL end up hurting the economy so the answer is to get loud and persuasive--commercials even--pointing out the cause and effect correlation between these deportations and both the budget and the economy.
American citizens have been caught up in mass deportations since at least the 1930s, which makes these tribal events civil rights issues:
"Mass deportations of Mexican immigrants from the U.S. date to the Great Depression, when the federal government began a wave of deportations rather than include Mexican-born workers in New Deal welfare programs. According to historian Francisco Balderrama, the U.S. deported over 1 million Mexican nationals, 60 percent of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, during the 1930s."
Apparently you missed my point. My point was about doing the right thing. Also we have already established that American citizens are getting caught up in this.
No, I understood your point perfectly: I just disagreed with it, because you blurred a real and important distinction. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't, thanks for the opportunity to offer this needed clarification.
We'll agree to disagree. I don't think that distinction is relevant, especially when legal immigrants and citizens are getting caught up in it. And I would further point out that my original comment was not made in a vacuum--it was specifically referring to whether Democrats should drop all immigration related issues because they are not popular, just for the sake of winning the next election.
Unfortunately, I see no evidence of what the headline promises here. They aren’t getting off the mat, they’re laying on it making statements. Call me when you have an actual legislative action, guys.
To me this should not be just a Democrat thing. Republicans should want workers here too. Tgeybshoukd want to solve the illegal problem by sitting up ways to get citizenship. No one should want racial profiling. I remember last time Trump did this our neighbor was deported. They confiscated his passport, which was in his glove compartment. I suspect this is happening again. There has to be a better way to do this.
“It has been helpful for me to think of what the Trump administration wants to do as not just a mass deportation agenda, which fits neatly on a poster, but rather the radical expansion of executive power that’s designed to reshape the country in terms of racial composition,” Noroña said.
Mauricio Noroña, Director of the Immigration Rights Advocacy Clinic and Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Touro University
The Democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- again! -- if they cast themselves as the Party of Illegal Immigration.
If they try to educate the American People on what "Temporary Protected Status" means and that people who have it are NOT in the country illegally, great. If they propose a way to ensure that "Temporary" means what is says, even better.
If they say that people who are awaiting adjudication of an asylum claim are not in the country illegally and come up with a plan -- like registration and tracking, quicker adjudication, and removal of people whose claims are denied, again great.
If they can come up with a way to give people in the country illegally a path to legal permanent residence without necessarily a path to citizenship like some countries have, that would be a genius move.
But if they continue to simply insist that border security and deportation of illegals are racist and that anyone who supports those things is a bigot, they'll just guarantee continued Republican victories. The American People know better.
"Simply being in the country illegally is not a crime,"
What?
As I understand it, being in the country illegally is a civil violation, not a criminal violation. It's like getting a parking ticket, compared to killing someone while driving drunk.
It's a technical distinction which is not politically helpful. Because most people don't understand the difference, and people react viscerally and negatively when the government cannot seem to control illegal immigration.
Addendum: I should add that another reason it's not helpful is because most people *want* illegal immigration to be a criminal offense, instead of just a civil offense.
It's part of the U.S. legal codes, though, which makes it appear criminal to me. I mean, if it were a merely civil violation, then how can the government handcuff and deport people based on a civil infraction? Most people aren't deported for parking illegally, s/ though perhaps they should be. /s
Yeah, I should have done a little more research before posting, since it's an interesting technical discussion (but I tried to argue earlier, not a helpful political distinction). Apparently, it can be both civil and criminal.
According to one source, (https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence/), illegal immigration can be both civil and criminal:
- Improper Entry Is a Crime, but
- Unlawful Presence Is Not a Crime
That sounds more correct to me. Otherwise you could be charged additionally for every day you stayed, which seems rather silly. Thanks for the clarification!
“The reality is Joe Biden let more than 10 million people into our country,” said Donalds. I think they pulled this number out of their rear orifice. However many immigrants did arrive during Biden's administration, our economy fared far better than any other in the world and the enlarged labor pool — especially when so many Americans had their health destroyed, died, or were forced to take time off to care for ill relatives — likely had something to do with that.
Removing those workers will have the opposite effect. States like Florida and Georgia that passed harsh anti-immigrant laws in the past already saw that trend in their agricultural economies.
To those of us who oppose unlimited illegal immigration, the economics are not the most important question. National sovereignty and our right to determine our own future is.
I oppose all illegal immigration as well. That being said, our political leaders have failed us for years by being unwilling to agree upon sensible, much-needed bipartisan immigration reform. They would rather keep it as a political cudgel, to everyone's ultimate disadvantage.
This means that under our current system, almost all legal immigration opportunities have been eliminated, and this has many more impacts than you may realize. Anti-immigrant pols look the other way while their corporate donors hire undocumented workers. In many cases, they have no alternative, as many are doing jobs Americans do not want to do. The lack of immigration reform gives those employers the power to exploit and abuse those workers. That's as much a moral and safety issue as it is an economic one.
You point out concerns about national sovereignty and borders, and I fully agree. Bipartisan immigration reform would address these, and make it possible for us to have the workers we need for our critical industries like agriculture, construction, food processing and healthcare — several of which are staffed with roughly 50% undocumented workers!
There are solutions to be had that address security, sovereignty, morality and economics, but they won't be solved without the will on both sides to solve them.
I agree with everything you've said. I strongly favor more legal immigration; notionally, I'm pretty well aligned with Matt Yglesias's idea of "One Billion Americans" within maybe two generations, maybe less.
For me, that certainly means a lot of skilled immigration, but it can also include non-skilled immigration, as long as we guarantee that it won't be at starvation wages. Americans should not be permitted to import an underpaid underclass just to have artificially low prices at the supermarket, or to support farmers whose crops don't make economic (or environmental) sense. If there are crops that cannot be raised economically in the US while paying a living wage, that for me is an indication that we should be importing them from places where they CAN be raised economically, not importing people to exploit in the US.
We should be rigorous and consistent in fulfilling our asylum obligations under international law and the treaties we have signed to shelter those who have a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" by state action or with state connivance. No one from places like Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, or Myanmar should ever be deported against their will to those places, unless they come to the US under false pretenses. On the other hand, victims of natural disasters and citizens of failed states should not be considered for asylum, although Congress should always be free to grant them Temporary Protected Status, if it judges that to be warranted. Merely economic migrants who enter the country illegally under color of asylum are trying to game the system and should be ejected summarily.
I'm an immigrant myself -- an American immigrant in Brazil. Brazil is one of several countries -- I would also include Canada and Australia -- from which the United States could learn a lot to come up with a fair, welcoming system that has broad political support. Of course, the US is the world's #1 migrant target, and not every policy is scalable, but many are. It doesn't all have to be invented all over again: it's ok to copy and adapt.
Completely agree, Al. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Be well :-).
Thanks for the Bloomberg info at the end b/c it's important to have actual data backing up the idea that immigrants do jobs other people won't--I think it's too easy for people to dismiss that idea as just a pro-immigration talking point, when it's not/it's supported by data..
did we not learn anything from this past election? immigration is a stinker of an issue - people (even Democrat voters) want deportations of anyone here undocumented. it's a loser of an issue and anyone seen fighting harder for people here undocumented over legal citizens is ripe to become a target in the midterms. let it go. winners make policy - losers go home with their tails between their legs.
It strikes me that you are not learning that Trump's extremism is indeed going to cause the problems expected, in which case independents may settle down about this. MAGA will not, but when food prices go up from labor shortages, etc, centrists may learn or realize that Trump's extremism on this issue is hurting the country. Also, the definition of undocumented includes people waiting on their asylum trials, they are here legally and I don't know of any Democrats who want them deported.
it strikes me you are not learning that the 'deport the undocumented' popularity is at an all time high - and that the hispanic vote (especially male) swung massively to Trump b/c of the immigration issue. given the wide spread popularity of deportations, there absolutely has to be Democrats in this mix.
Any Democrat supporting mass deportations will lose a lot of support. Mass deportation is a different kettle of fish from not letting people into the country. They are racially profiling and sweeping up citizens and documented people, not to mention legal undocumented people. Controlling the border is very different from mass deportations. I see no enthusiasm for that among independents.
It would be nice if Democratic leadership could advance beyond being 2 steps behind. The mass deportations, while terrible, are but a prelude to the arrest, disappearance, and internment of dissidents (& other undesirables). Everyone knows, it's written down, and it's been proclaimed by Trump himself for well over a year. So if our leadership is "getting off the mat to protect our [immigrant] communities" it's already too little too late. WAKE UP. Erodgan, Putin, et al. aren't advising this administration for the delectation of NYT both-siders; they're rapidly installing literal fascism.
Well, it’s about time! The Trump/Musk Billionaire Boyz, and MAGA, not only want a return to racism … but they want to force the country to join them. The Dixiecrats wholly supported segregation, but balked at demanding the rest of the country to comply.
Trump? Intimidate ‘em! Hurt ‘em. Smirk whilst thou smite!
"A Registry for Immigrants Evokes 9/11", more like "A Registry for Immigrants Evokes Nazi Germany". There, fixed it for you.
I’m moving USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to the top tier of my list of first cabinet member to leave the administration. Good luck Brooke!
As sad as these deportations are, a huge segment of the US population want this to some degree. This is not the topic that is going to win over enough voters.
Pretty sure people said that in the South about Civil Rights also.
People want a secure border. They don't want a police state with Puerto Ricans being arrested. They don't want raised food prices from immigrant labor disappearing. The Democrats have an obligation to CONNECT the bad results to the extreme deportations. Let's not forget it was independents who really turned the tide for Trump--and the economy is what they cared most about.
People in the South who said that about Civil Rights were wrong, because that was about the Constitutional rights of American citizens. There is no Constitutional right of immigration to the United States.
As an Independent I'm not sure I would blame the Independents. More, it was on those who did not vote at all.
I keep saying this, but if dems in blue cities/states really want to push back against Trump's revoking of federal funding as a weapon then they should cut off gas/electricity/water to ICE buildings in their cities/states. THAT is a huge point of leverage that they have over the feds. Just because the blue city/states might have to house a federal ICE facility doesn't mean they have to service them with water/electricity/gas. Send the city inspector(s) out and shut off the pipes to federal ICE facilities as a way to get the Trump admin to start compromising. Let's see ICE organize mass deportations when they can't turn on their office computers or flush their toilets.
Dang. I like how you think. Not sure it would pass legal scrutiny but it would sure make me happy.
Under the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court cases dating back to McCulloch v. Maryland, that would be illegal and would be shut down FAST. If municipal governments in Blue states aren't perceptive enough to realize that, their State governments certainly are.
Y’know those signs in many public places about maximum capacity per fire marshal? Does exceeding that after a big round up make an ICE building illegal?
Cuz we def don’t like anything illegal, si?
Afghan engineers for U.S. military got to US in 2021-22 and are rebuilding their lives. But Wednesday they received a letter from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul (closed) signed only by “Chief of mission - COM (no name) saying their fully approved and vetted SIV status has been revoked!
They are given 3 months to appeal using complex series of links without names of anyone who might know about the revoke policy… scam? Musk gone wilder? Deportation to death by Taliban? Anntares@yahoo.com
Holy cow are you serious? I mentored a family last year whose dad fought with our military. My daughter now tutors one of their kids. Do you have a link to anything about this?
First, you make me proud to be American. Second, what is a Nation but segregation writ large, and the need for segregation requires understanding why people leave their homes and risk their lives to come here. We're better than them is not enough, that's why Democrats lost the last election. Until the Democrats come up with a coherent, humane plan for our borders that includes real help in fixing the problems at home, the Democratic Party will remain Republican Lite.
Disappointing--already there's a comment that negatively interprets defending against harsh immigration practices that would hurt the economy for all and would also violate the rights and safety of nonWhite citizens caught up in ethnic profiling. This topic can elicit knee-jerk emotional responses that Dems *only* care about illegal immigrants despite evidence to the contrary and the inhumane reduction of human beings to "illegals" or "aliens."
Yeah I find these comments really upsetting too. As I already responded to one, civil rights was not a winning issue in the South either. Should they have just given up? Not to mention this WILL end up hurting the economy so the answer is to get loud and persuasive--commercials even--pointing out the cause and effect correlation between these deportations and both the budget and the economy.
American citizens have been caught up in mass deportations since at least the 1930s, which makes these tribal events civil rights issues:
"Mass deportations of Mexican immigrants from the U.S. date to the Great Depression, when the federal government began a wave of deportations rather than include Mexican-born workers in New Deal welfare programs. According to historian Francisco Balderrama, the U.S. deported over 1 million Mexican nationals, 60 percent of whom were U.S. citizens of Mexican descent, during the 1930s."
www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation
Civil Rights was about American citizens. Apples and oranges.
Apparently you missed my point. My point was about doing the right thing. Also we have already established that American citizens are getting caught up in this.
No, I understood your point perfectly: I just disagreed with it, because you blurred a real and important distinction. I thought that was obvious but since it wasn't, thanks for the opportunity to offer this needed clarification.
We'll agree to disagree. I don't think that distinction is relevant, especially when legal immigrants and citizens are getting caught up in it. And I would further point out that my original comment was not made in a vacuum--it was specifically referring to whether Democrats should drop all immigration related issues because they are not popular, just for the sake of winning the next election.