Home | About | Donate

Trump Administration Issues How-To for 'Hyper-Aggressive Mass Deportation Policy'


Trump Administration Issues How-To for 'Hyper-Aggressive Mass Deportation Policy'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

The Trump administration on Tuesday issued new guidelines that constitute a "sweeping rewrite" of Obama-era policies on immigration, greatly expanding the number of individuals that can be forcibly deported and further emboldening the current crackdown.


T-dump better send out the "La Migra" alarm to his hotels, resorts, and other enterprises in the U S so all the undocumented workers they employ will be spared. Where would Mar-a-Lago be without all the domestic workers it takes to clean up after the pickled puking patrons?

The demonic dimwit cares nothing about the toll taken in lives of entire families, the destruction of communities, the decimation of the agricultural work force harvesting crops, and the overall and widespread damage such short-sighted, inhumane, knee-jerk policies do to our economy and our democracy (such as it is).


This is going to cost dearly. Doesn't Congress need to allocate funding?


Democrats should demand that all of Trump hotels and resorts are screened for undocumented workers with minor crimes on their record.

Are employers of these undocumented workers being fined?


I'll be getting a shipment of 18 bunk mattresses at my house to take to our caving club field station house in West Virginia. I wonder if I'm going to have ICE agents knocking on my door...


Call your Congressman and Senators and demand new legislation that creates a 'Hyper-Agressive Mass Deportation Policy' for Congressmen and Senators that do not represent the will of the Majority.

Let's shake things up.


Nor did Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao. Re-education camps coming next.


From the Article: ".. direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire up to 10,000 new agents, expand the number of detention facilities, and detain individuals at the start of removal proceedings, rather than giving a notice to appear in court."

After the dreadful Patriot Act was passed and the airport security/scrutiny was exponentially increased, I used to wonder what kind of individual would want to work at an airport to "screen" innocent people and take away their water bottles. But yet, there seemed to be no shortage of takers.

I find that I'm now wondering what kind of person would take a job locking up innocent people and taking them away from their homes and families because they don't have a proper piece of paper. I should not be surprised to learn that there will be no shortage of takers.

Someone please help me understand who are the people who could take these kind of jobs? Have they never heard of "at first they came for xxx and I helped them because I wasn't a xxx"


During his eight years in office, Obama deported at least two million immigrants. Most estimates are about 50% higher, but going with the 2 million figure, that works out to 1096 deportations each day for eight years. I know "two wrongs don't make a right", but it's something to keep in mind.


Trump is also sending South Americans to Mexico, which only makes sense if you think that "those people"are all the same.


Hopefully, local law enforcement will remember that their primary mission is to serve and protect their local community, and not get too much drawn into these gestapo-like actions. There are always
ways to find more urgent priorities!


Not to worry. this tea-bagger congress will always find ways to fund authoritarian actions.


I've already seen the first rah-rah-homeland recruiting ad. Hey, he did promise to create jobs.


How could it possibly be relevant, other than to say Obama got a good number of the dangerous criminals sent back already?


I've been wondering just how local law enforcement gets coopted without the cooperation of local government. That's who we've got to keep our eyes on. More and more jurisdictions must be urged to declare they won't (aka "Sanctuary").


Exactly! They don't even have to formally declare as a "Sanctuary" (thus avoiding becoming targets), just kind of look the other way, focus on other crimes, etc.


Well, it will take a clearly stated local policy that local personnel cannot be nationalized, and it might take firing a few rogues.


Won't they need 60 votes in the Senate?


"How could it possibly be relevant, other than to say Obama got a good number of the dangerous criminals sent back already?"

Aren't we talking about deporting immigrants? Is your point that Obama only deported "dangerous criminals"? Consider the following from The Federalist, admittedly a right wing site ( http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/13/washington-post-forgets-all-about-obamas-deportation-practices/ ):

Here’s The New York Times on April 9, 2014:

    On Monday, The Times reported that most of those deported by the Obama administration 
    don’t fit the profile of serious criminals, threats to public safety, ‘the worst of 
    the worst,’ as Janet Napolitano, Mr. Obama’s first Homeland Security secretary, used 
    to put it.

    Far from it. ‘Two-thirds of the nearly two million deportation cases,’ Ginger Thompson 
    wrote, ‘involve people who had committed minor infractions, including traffic violations, 
    or had no criminal record at all.’

    On Tuesday, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research organization at 
    Syracuse University that studies immigration statistics, reported similar findings. It 
    found that in fiscal year 2013, ‘only 12 percent of all deportees had been found to have 
    committed a serious or ‘Level 1’ offense based on the agency’s own definitions.’


And here’s Politico last year in a story about corralling and deporting non-prioritized 
people in the country illegally:

    The Obama administration confirmed Monday that it began a new wave of arrests of 
    Central American immigrant families over the weekend, moving forward with deportations 
    of mothers and children despite an outcry from immigrant rights groups and potential 
    political fallout for Democrats.

Or were you suggesting something else that I missed in my comparison?


I was mostly saying that what happened in the Obama administration is the past and has no bearing on what djt may do. But I'd be more impressed with your presentation of that history if you could do it from primary sources, or at least with links to primary sources. But selections from their selections do not convince me. And Obama did set up DACA.

I was also saying that djt claims he's only going after "the worst of the worst." I'm not talking about 2 wrongs. I'm asking how deep does that designation go?

Can we talk about now?