Let the deportations begin?

[Rogar]

Possibly a little preliminary to discuss. I remember Trump's promise in previous elections to deal with a mass of illegal aliens with no real or lasting effect. His medieval wall was mostly for show. The news seems to think deportations are rising to the top as one of his day one objectives and his minions seem to be behind him. There are wild numbers being tossed around but most are in the million or many millions. Trump is saying he will send in the military and build detention centers. Stephen Miller has said he would recruit state militias from red states to overcome resistance in blue states (possibly illegal if not incendiary?) And there are the economic implications of taking away a work force doing jobs us common folk won't do.

I see immigration as one of Biden's failures, but also the elephant in the room that lame politics have ignored for many regimes. It's something I could learn more about, but how did many millions of illegal immigrants end up here in the first place. Congress has ignored meaning legislation that would legitimize DACA recipients and maybe even generations of others who have lived under the radar for decades and should or could be offered a path to citizenship. And politics has probably not funded agencies to expeditiously process people who come to the country for legitimate reason. No doubt it's a problem.

Possibly too many unknowns to talk about now, but it looks like it's coming.

[iris lilies]

One thing Trump’s big loud bluster about illegal immigration does is slow down the traffic coming into our country. During his presidency isn’t true that those coming were greatly reduced from the Obama days?

[Tybee]

Rogar, I think what you are going to see is a lot of American citizens being mistakenly deported because they will round up anyone who appears Latino, etc. That's my opinion of what will happen. That is what has happened in the past.

And you will see a lot more children separated from their parents and basically orphaned. That is also what happened in the past.

It will not be good.

[catherine]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/polit...eal/index.html

We were super close to a bipartisan bill that Trump blew up to prevent Biden from getting a "win." That's the way he rolls. If you are a cutthroat mergers and acquisition guy, those kinds of strategies might work, but Congress should not make legisltation a hostile takeover. Another example of what will be good for Trump but bad for the country.

[iris lilies]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/polit...eal/index.html

We were super close to a bipartisan bill that Trump blew up to prevent Biden from getting a "win." That's the way he rolls. If you are a cutthroat mergers and acquisition guy, those kinds of strategies might work, but Congress should not make legisltation a hostile takeover. Another example of what will be good for Trump but bad for the country.

Were there any good reasons to scrap that bill? Any? Any at all? Bueller?

Brookings Institute’s summary of that bill and context which Brookings says was stopped by Republicans for substantive and political reasons:

“…In the first place, many Republicans believe that the president already has all the legal authority he needs to do what needs to be done, including closing the border, and they view the Senate bill as limiting rather than enhancing executive authority. Second, many Republicans are using the border security bill the House passed early last year, HR 2, as their benchmark. Among other provisions, this bill would end President Biden’s parole program, dramatically reduce the grounds for claiming asylum, reinstate the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy, and force Biden to resume building President Trump’s border wall. Measured against this standard, the Senate bill’s compromises on asylum and border closure are bound to appear timid half-measures that will not get the job done.
Finally, many Republicans are prepared to wait until 2025 to address border security. If Donald Trump defeats President Biden and reenters the Oval Office, they believe that they will get everything they want without enacting compromise legislation that would limit Trump’s powers. In the meantime, they believe, the issue is damaging Biden, and they do not see why they should help him during an election year...

[catherine]

Were there any good reasons to scrap that bill? Any? Any at all? Bueller?

Brookings Institute’s summary of that bill and context which Brookings says was stopped by Republicans for substantive and political reasons:

“…In the first place, many Republicans believe that the president already has all the legal authority he needs to do what needs to be done, including closing the border, and they view the Senate bill as limiting rather than enhancing executive authority. Second, many Republicans are using the border security bill the House passed early last year, HR 2, as their benchmark. Among other provisions, this bill would end President Biden’s parole program, dramatically reduce the grounds for claiming asylum, reinstate the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy, and force Biden to resume building President Trump’s border wall. Measured against this standard, the Senate bill’s compromises on asylum and border closure are bound to appear timid half-measures that will not get the job done.
Finally, many Republicans are prepared to wait until 2025 to address border security. If Donald Trump defeats President Biden and reenters the Oval Office, they believe that they will get everything they want without enacting compromise legislation that would limit Trump’s powers. In the meantime, they believe, the issue is damaging Biden, and they do not see why they should help him during an election year...

yo

OK, thanks for that. I also poked around a little on the internet and it does seem it was an OK bill, not a great bill. But it's true that Trump was instrumental in getting it killed.

[iris lilies]

yo

OK, thanks for that. I also poked around a little on the internet and it does seem it was an OK bill, not a great bill. But it's true that Trump was instrumental in getting it killed.

yes, apparently so. He took a big risk (with our country…I dont like that!) but he won.

[iris lilies]

I predict there will be high profile cases of deportation, swooping in to some enclaves and taking people from their safe hideaways to the southern border for them to cross south. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in the press about it. Children will be separated from parents. The ladies of The View will have material for days on end. It will be highly publicized events and at least one person will die.

But there are not a lot of resources to make meaningful inroads into ferreting out all the people squatting here illegally who are hanging out in our sanctuary settings and elsewhere. Much of the success will be in making a strong public stance against illigally coming here and that will stem some of the inflow and will scare some folks in returning to their homeland voluntarily.

[rosarugosa]

I am concerned about the potential for the workforce to be decimated in certain occupations. It seems to me that we could have a total win-win if we could come up with a system to quickly and efficiently process immigrants, allowing more to come in legally and join the workforce right away. The objections I most commonly hear about immigrants is not so much about their existence in our country, but the need to feed and house them at the public's expense. My town apparently has a lot of immigrants being housed in motels along the highway. People keep calling them "illegals," but I believe they actually have refugee TPS status, which can drag on for a very long time.

However, I also agree with a wise poster on the MMM forum who said that when you see a perfectly clear and simple solution to a complex problem, it probably means there are nuances or factors of which you are unaware, otherwise the simple solution would have already been implemented.

[iris lilies]

I am concerned about the potential for the workforce to be decimated in certain occupations. It seems to me that we could have a total win-win if we could come up with a system to quickly and efficiently process immigrants, allowing more to come in legally and join the workforce right away. The objections I most commonly hear about immigrants is not so much about their existence in our country, but the need to feed and house them at the public's expense. My town apparently has a lot of immigrants being housed in motels along the highway. People keep calling them "illegals," but I believe they actually have refugee TPS status, which can drag on for a very long time.

However, I also agree with a wise poster on the MMM forum who said that when you see a perfectly clear and simple solution to a complex problem, it probably means there are nuances or factors of which you are unaware, otherwise the simple solution would have already been implemented.

OhI know there is no simple solution, I’m not expecting that.

I really don’t know the numbers such as how many agricultural workers for instance are here illegally and how many here with correct documents? How many pick strawberries legally and how many do not do it legally?