Post New

ICE officers stormed out of the gates during the first 10 days of the administration. The agency did highly publicized enforcement raids in “sanctuary” cities run by Democrats, bringing along television crews and celebrities like Dr. Phil. For several days, ICE published its daily arrest numbers on social media, which started in the several hundreds per day and reached 1,179 on Jan. 26.


ICE arrests have sagged so far this month, according to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, declining from about 800 per day in late January after Trump took office to fewer than 600 during the first 13 days of February. The administration has stopped publishing daily numbers, and Trump officials said they will release the data on a monthly basis to conserve resources. It is a level well below the Trump administration’s goal of 1,200 to 1,500 arrests per day.
“I’m not happy. We need more‚” Tom Homan, Trump’s designated “border czar,” said Thursday on Newsmax. He did not respond to a request for comment.
The top two enforcement officials at ICE were removed from their jobs this week and reassigned due to what Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said was a lack of “results.”
But critics see something else.
“I see a lot of show,” said Jason Houser, who was chief of staff for ICE during the Biden administration. “This administration wants to continuously bring in every piece of the government away from their mission.” He added that federal law enforcement officials who usually focus on illicit firearms, drugs and sex traffickers are now “standing around in their jackets arresting noncriminals.”

Well, what do you expect when you put incompetent buffoons in charge?

But Kristi Noem sure looks good dressed up like a helicopter pilot!

Form over substance- all the way down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/02...

If it results in more expenses, more debt, more crime, more prison---- then You People get more of what you deserve.

If deportations work - great.

If not - hey -even better.

Lulz@the libs. Of course the criminals are going to ground now that somebody’s out there looking for them.

Maybe they’d rather have thugs roaming every neighborhood? Nah, not theirs.

This board loudly and arrogantly said there was zero way to stem the flow at the southern border unless the GOP got on its knees for the democrats…how’s that prediction working out? Not a one of the goobs has said boo about it, either.

But Kristi Noem sure looks good dressed up like a helicopter pilot!

Maybe we can gather up a few stray dogs and let Kristi shoot them to help pick up her spirits?

Lulz@the libs. Of course the criminals are going to ground now that somebody’s out there looking for them.

Only fools and hard core acolytes offer excuses for failure

Maybe they’d rather have thugs roaming every neighborhood? Nah, not theirs.

This board loudly and arrogantly said there was zero way to stem the flow at the southern border unless the GOP got on its knees for the democrats…how’s that prediction working out? Not a one of the goobs has said boo about it, either.

and then following up your excuse with gibberish pulled straight from the right wing propaganda machine…….


Priceless!

Only fools and hard core acolytes offer excuses f

What failure?

and then following up your excuse with gibberish pulled straight from the right wing propaganda machine……

Tell me you’re very butthurt and sore without telling me you’re very butthurt and sore.

Tell me you’re very butthurt and sore without telling me you’re very butthurt and sore.

And then follows up with crude references to his favorite and oft repeated fantasy.

You’re a caricature, Dope.

This board loudly and arrogantly said there was zero way to stem the flow at the southern border unless the GOP got on its knees for the democrats…how’s that prediction working out?

Pretty good, actually.

You may recall that the main argument in defense of the border bill was not about "stemming the flow" at the southern border, but instead about giving the government the tools to deal with the folks here in the U.S. The ability of the federal government to deport people is constrained by the resources they have. In order to deport folks, you need border patrol and law enforcement officers and immigration judges and detention facilities. Those factors constrain the "throughput" of deportees. The most significant portion of the border bill would have vastly increased the amount of resources appropriated for those uses. And the government needs those extra resources in order to materially increase deportations.

BTW, this is also the argument that a number of Republican Senators have been making in defense of the "two bill" reconciliation strategy. They know that that the Administration can't make a dent in the deportation backlog until more border resources are appropriated. Since it will take a very long time to get the tax/deficit stuff worked out in the House, they wanted to push the border piece forward quickly.

Conservatives opposed to the 2024 border bill pushed back on that claim, dismissing arguments that the government was deporting those in the U.S. to the limits of its resources already. Instead, they argued that the federal government had more than enough resources already - that the main reason that there wasn't more volume of arrests and deportations was the Biden Administration choosing to refrain from deportation.

But it turns out that the Democratic position (and that of Senate Republicans) was correct. There isn't a backlog of "easy" deportations that were being allowed to stay just because of policy. It takes a lot of resources to arrest and deport someone. You can create a quick illusory jump in stats if you reallocate resources just to pushing through the ones that are ready for arrest and away from building the cases for the next batch - but then you end up crashing down to reality.

Had the GOP passed the border bill last year, Trump would have had vastly more resources to pursue arrests and deportations. But they didn't, so he doesn't. It doesn't matter how hard they whip the top folks at ICE - without more resources, they can't move materially more people through the pipeline. Having turned down the bill that would have increased those resources last year, they have to wait for the new Congress to take action.

You’re a caricature, Dope

You’re throwing the first punch every single time. Right now there’s very little difference between what you’re posting (name calling, telling others to GFY, etc.) and what a number of the worst posters here write. You might want to regain some perspective.

But it turns out that the Democratic position (and that of Senate Republicans) was correct.

Sorry, but I have reject this and the preceding paragraphs before it as being factually incomplete, if not altogether incorrect.

Biden’s problem on the borders were never entirely about resources. He and his party created incentives for people to rush the border, and rush the border they did. Absent those incentives we see a drastic reduction in the number of contacts at the southern border.

You have it exactly backwards: had the GOP passed that bill it would have codified thousands of “asylees” at the border per day…incentivizing tens of thousands more to head north in the hopes that they had won the lottery for that particular day. Passing that legislation would have also given the democrats a tool to continually raise the number by amending the statute as a part of every reconciliation bill - a filibuster proof way to a back door open border border policy in perpetuity.

We dodged a bullet.

I've heard that men of a certain age often have trouble with ejectile disfunction.

You have it exactly backwards: had the GOP passed that bill it would have codified thousands of “asylees” at the border per day…incentivizing tens of thousands more to head north in the hopes that they had won the lottery for that particular day.

It would not have codified any number of asylees. It would have only set a threshold at which time the President could exercise a power that he did not currently have - to apply expedited removal procedures to asylum claimants that under current law are not subject to expedited removal. That would have created no additional incentives. Currently there are no provisions for expedited removal for that category of border crosser.

The only change to the status quo was to reduce the protections for asylees. It put a high daily number on when that reduced protection would kick in, to be sure - but the only actual effect was negative for asylees.

Conservative media falsely portrayed that as codifying a benefit for asylees, when it was the exact opposite, in order to drum up opposition to the bill. But had the bill passed, Trump would have had vastly more resources to use to actually increase deportation rates. The high threshold for the expedited removal process to kick in wouldn't have affected him in the least - it only gives the President more removal power, just in rare situations. But the GOP forewent the extra resources because it was far more politically useful for them to do so.

So now they're paying for that choice. The Trump Administration doesn't have the tools to accomplish one of their highest priority goals. They can't move any more people through the deportation pipeline, because they don't have the agents and LEO's and lawyers and immigration court space and detention facilities to get it done. They're trying to divert resources from other agencies (like DoD and other law enforcement agencies), but that's not really working. The people aren't trained to do this kind of work, so bringing law enforcement personnel from other parts of the government doesn't really add much.

It's exactly what we were all saying would happen. The rate of deportations (which conservatives found unacceptably low) was a product of resource constraints, and it couldn't be materially increased just by having more of a hardliner setting policy. So now you have the most hardline administration you can imagine, whose immigration policy is led by Miller and Homan who are whipping ICE as hard as they can, and the deportation rate hasn't budged. Again, because the GOP turned down the resources back when the Democrats were offering them.

The only change to the status quo was to reduce the protections for asylees. It put a high daily number on when that reduced protection would kick in, to be sure - but the only actual effect was negative for asylees.

You've explained that umpteen times to him. He refused to listen last year, and he's still refusing even though the evidence is in his face. But I do appreciate the replies he elicits from you. I learn a lot, even if he doesn't.

Were it not for the Felon, that law would be on the books, and the current POTUS (whomever it would have been) would have the tools. BHM said he voted for change, but the opportunity for change (at least on immigration) happened last year. That would have been a big change. Pretty sure the Felon administration isn't going to get anything passed, at least in part because he doesn't work that way (i.e. he leads by edict). Which is probably why he wants the military involved...an added resource at the border, because they have no other resources available. Which, I believe, makes posse comitatus come into play (i.e. he can't use the military at the border, at least not on the US side...I'm sure Mexico would have something to say if we deployed on their side, too).

It would not have codified any number of asylees.

Yes it did. Why do you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this? Emergency procedures wouldn’t be allowed until the threshold of 5,000 encounters a day were hit.

Allowing any number above zero creates an incentive to storm the border in the hopes that you win the lottery that day.

The democrats are all about creating incentives for people to migrate to the US, plain and simple and that last bill was a shining example of it.

BTW if Trump wants more Border Patrol funding it’s a simple addendum to a reconciliation bill.

To be clear...
We have
Case 1: Regardless of how many migrants "storm the border" the rules stay the same
Case 2: If 5000 or more "storm the border" then the rules tighten down

You believe case 1 is better? That's just crazy talk.
Alan

Crazy talk. Okay.
Look, it’s not my fault the democrats suck at…well, everything but especially at protecting the southern border.

Since in fact no one can fail that spectacularly at a task it’s a far more likely thing that they have no intention of ever securing the southern border.

If you people can’t understand the simple notion that rational human beings respond to incentives, I can’t help you.

Yes it did. Why do you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this? Emergency procedures wouldn’t be allowed until the threshold of 5,000 encounters a day were hit.

Allowing any number above zero creates an incentive to storm the border in the hopes that you win the lottery that day.

No, it doesn't. Again, the status quo doesn't have any emergency procedures. So there's no "lottery" to win. Today, everyone is immune from emergency procedures - under the proposal, some people might have been hit with emergency procedures. The proposal is more strict than the status quo, and doesn't codify any benefits that asylees don't already have.

BTW if Trump wants more Border Patrol funding it’s a simple addendum to a reconciliation bill.

Except again, the reality is far more complicated - because the reconciliation bills aren't simple. Which is the source of the "one vs. two" debate between the Senate and House GOP. The Senate wants to pass a reconciliation bill with just border and energy money, with a second reconciliation package on budgets and taxes and deficits to follow. Because they know the votes exist on that first reconciliation package.

The House wants to do one bill - because they know that the second bill has a lot of issues that Members disagree on, and might not pass without Democratic votes. So they need the immigration and energy provisions to whip recalcitrant members. If Trump's most important policy priority isn't in the second bill, members might insist that the package address their own districts' priorities rather than fear the wrath of Trump.

Again, bird in the hand. The GOP passed up a chance for a big increase in deportation resources. Now that Trump won the election, he doesn't have the resources necessary for any material increase in deportation flow. So deportations aren't increasing materially. It turns out that the then-current rate of deportation was a result of resource constraints rather than executive recalcitrance, despite what conservatives were claiming. So changing the executive to an immigration hardliner didn't change those deportation flows.

This board loudly and arrogantly said there was zero way to stem the flow at the southern border unless the GOP got on its knees for the democrats

Do you ever post anything but bullshit fed to you by the RW propaganda machine?

The Dems supported a bipartisan immigration reform bill until Trump killed it so he could campaign on his lies.

So why don't you STFU.

>I> So changing the executive to an immigration hardliner didn't change those deportation flows. - albaby

---------------

It sure seems like it has. My own eyes, watching interviews with CBP and ICE personnel, border county sheriffs plus the videos of the border now, compared to the massive caravans and encampments under Biden tell me a LOT has changed.

Word is out, don't come, too many migra's says one deportee in chains on his way to the plane. When would-be illegal immigrants are not coming in the first place, then they are not here to feed "deportation flows."

Please don't feed the trolls.

No, it doesn't. Again, the status quo doesn't have any emergency procedures.

Except for the current one, you mean?

Except again, the reality is far more complicated - because the reconciliation bills aren't simple. Which is the source of the "one vs. two" debate between the Senate and House GOP.

Hmm. The key part of this is that the debate is between the House GOP and the Senate GOP. Guess who’s not a part of that debate?

The only “debate” will be *how much more* to give the BP.

And to your point about “Trump passed up his chance…” yeah, no. As I said if he wants more border funding he’ll get it.

He also won’t have to settle for more “resources” in the form of people processing bogus amnesty applications…which is what the democrats were offering. Not an increase in actual law enforcement personnel. That’s another important wrinkle.

Word is out, don't come, too many migra's says one deportee in chains on his way to the plane. When would-be illegal immigrants are not coming in the first place, then they are not here to feed "deportation flows."


Yup. The proof is in the pudding. Remove many incentives for people to make the journey and lo and behold, illegal immigration drops.

The left screws this up with nearly every policy they promote. Take “harm reduction”. There are those that actually think that handing out more needles and making it easy for junkies to shoot up reduces the rates of overdose. Spoiler alert: it does just the opposite, as even the state of Oregon had to admit to itself.

If you people can’t understand the simple notion that rational human beings respond to incentives, I can’t help you.

You can't understand that rational human beings are not looking to you for any help, answers, or understanding - nada, zippo.

He also won’t have to settle for more “resources” in the form of people processing bogus amnesty applications…which is what the democrats were offering. Not an increase in actual law enforcement personnel. - Dope

----------------------

This...

That last minute Trojan Horse would have cemented into law that we had to accept an average of 5,000 a day over a week or 8,500 in a single day, before allowing expedited deportations. Compare to Homan, who has it down to under 500 a day right now. The amazing thing is that Biden was helpless without legislation, yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation.

He also won’t have to settle for more “resources” in the form of people processing bogus amnesty applications

Nah. IIRC about 30% weren't claiming asylum, then of what was left about 1/3 didn't make it past the six week hearing, then another 13 didn't make it past the final hearing. So maybe around 20-30 % passed the final hearing.

That last minute Trojan Horse would have cemented into law that we had to accept an average of 5,000 a day over a week or 8,500 in a single day, before allowing expedited deportations.

I don't think so. Per my memory at over 5,000 Trump could shut down the border and not take any crossings -just turn 'em right back. And I think the first period was for six weeks but maybe that was months. Fuzzy there. Now think Mike, if you have that type of framework, you can get different figures and extended times through Congress if you want. No Trojan Horse, see what you get in the next month or two.

SNIPPEE
The Use of Expedited Removal Over Time

The use of expedited removal to deport people has risen substantially over the past two decades, peaking in FY 2013 when approximately 193,000 persons were deported from the United States through expedited removal, which represented 43 percent of the 438,000 removals from the United States that year. The use of expedited removal fell significantly during fiscal years 2020 to 2023 when “Title 42” (a pandemic-related health policy permitting rapid expulsion of migrants without access to asylum) was in effect. Since Title 42 ended in May 2023, each month over 20,000 migrants have been placed in the expedited removal process.

Nah. IIRC about 30% weren't claiming asylum, then of what was left about 1/3 didn't make it past the six week hearing, then another 13 didn't make it past the final hearing. So maybe around 20-30 % passed the final hearing.

Uh, huh. You’re still talking about thousands of people.

Look, just take the loss on this one. You people swore up and down there was absolutely nothing that could be done. Only passing this Supremely Awesome Border Bill was going to do anything.

But you guys overplayed your hand and fed the leg too many poison pills without giving the GOP any real security. Then when a REAL border security bill showed up - HB2 - you all screamed about it.

We get it. You think that “demographics is destiny” and that the more people you can pump into the country the better your party will do.

I don't think so. Per my memory at over 5,000 Trump could shut down the border and not take any crossings -just turn 'em right back.

Yes. We had this discussion last year, and apparently we're having to have it again. As I recall, albaby even quoted the text of the proposed bill. Dope is simply wrong in this. Right now, and also a year ago, there is no option to close the border at 5000. So it could be 500,000, with nothing to stop it. If that bill had passed, there would be that option. But it didn't, so there isn't.

QED

If there is a bill this year, I suspect it will strongly resemble the one they agreed to last year. If it is more restrictive, most Dems won't go for it. If it's less restrictive, most Reps won't go for it. So it will have to resemble the previous agreement, or there will be no bill. My prediction.

would have cemented into law that we had to accept an average of 5,000 a day over a week or 8,500 in a single day, before allowing expedited deportations.

Again, you repeat lies. That law didn't REQUIRE that anyone be let in. It only required that number of people present themselves at the border. They all could be turned back if their paperwork was not in order.

It's called doing their fucking job - to examine everyone coming to the border. But when you get too many, there aren't enough resources (there's that problem again - a problem that would have been fixed with the law your favorite morons turned down) to process everyone. So you shut down the border while the insufficient number of people do their job and process the backlog of applications already in line.

You've been fed lies and swallowed them all.

--Peter

And notice how not a single one of them will admit that their policies are incentives for people to rush the border?

Not.
A.
Single.
One.
Of.
Them.

And notice how not a single one of them will admit that their policies are incentives for people to rush the border?

Notice how not a one on the right will admit that their policies are incentives for the Great Spaghetti Monster to consume the earth in the name of he who commits no crime because he’s saving the country.

Notice how not a one on the right will admit that their policies are incentives for the Great Spaghetti Monster to consume the earth in the name of he who commits no crime because he’s saving the country.

And that’s knight to e5. Checkmate.
Thanks for playing.

And that’s knight to e5. Checkmate.

Hello there, Black Knight!

"That last minute Trojan Horse would have cemented into law that we had to accept an average of 5,000 a day over a week or 8,500 in a single day, before allowing expedited deportations. Compare to Homan, who has it down to under 500 a day right now. The amazing thing is that Biden was helpless without legislation, yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation." - BHM

Mike, your ignorance is being taken advantage of yet again and making you look like an idiot by repeating things that are simply not true.

Don't you have some Haitian immigrants to prosecute for eating dogs?

yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation." - BHM

Your admiration for corrupt criminal Trump is mind-boggling.

He is accomplishing the destruction of our Republic. I guess that is 'so much'. Sick

You are in a cult.

>>"That last minute Trojan Horse would have cemented into law that we had to accept an average of 5,000 a day over a week or 8,500 in a single day, before allowing expedited deportations. Compare to Homan, who has it down to under 500 a day right now. The amazing thing is that Biden was helpless without legislation, yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation." - BHM<<

Mike, your ignorance is being taken advantage of yet again and making you look like an idiot by repeating things that are simply not true. - Umm

---------------------

I stand by my numbers. Bolded above is my OP, bolded below is the AP confirming my numbers....

How does it feel to.... Oh never mind....

https://apnews.com/article/border-bill-opposition-...

At issue is a provision in the bipartisan package that would grant the Homeland Security secretary emergency authority to prohibit entry for most individuals if an average of more than 4,000 people per day try to enter the country unlawfully over the course of a week. If the number reaches 5,000 or if 8,500 try to enter unlawfully in a single day, use of the authority would be mandatory.
.
.
.
If the proposal were passed into law, the new authority could be triggered almost immediately, given that border encounters topped 10,000 on some days during December, which was the highest month on record for illegal crossings. President Joe Biden has said he would use the authority to “shut down” the border.

... more at link

This,
"President Joe Biden has said he would use the authority to “shut down” the border."
has been proven wrong by Trump. All it took was vision, leadership and determination to get illegal crossings down to less than 500 encounters per day. And Trump did it in less than 30 days with no additional funding or legislation. Trumps success did depend on one more condition, actually listening to what is important to main street.

This,
"President Joe Biden has said he would use the authority to “shut down” the border."
has been proven wrong by Trump. All it took was vision, leadership and determination to get illegal crossings down to less than 500 encounters per day. And Trump did it in less than 30 days with no additional funding or legislation. Trumps success did depend on one more condition, actually listening to what is important to main street.

Ankle-biters on message boards rarely remember the details of any debate, much less the salient points raised.

The amazing thing is that Biden was helpless without legislation, yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation." - BHM

Is this the part that admits defeat because y'all are doing catch and release? You ahven't accomplished much but smoke and mirros is you're doing catch and release. I thought Trump would be building detention centers like they built the hospitals in China.

The amazing thing is that Biden was helpless without legislation, yet Trump has accomplished so much on sheer determination and no legislation." - BHM

The Republicans have neutered two of the equal and counterbalancing branches of government.

This aint a good thing, but you don't seem to get it. Or don't care? Maybe you are just fine with living under an authoritarian regime.

I stand by my numbers. Bolded above is my OP, bolded below is the AP confirming my numbers....

It's not the numbers. It's the notion of "locking-in 5000 per day". That's not what it would have done. It would have allowed the government to shut down the border if we reached that level of crossings. A power it did not, and still does not -thanks to the Felon-, have.

The Felon had no success, no brilliance. I will agree that he -at least partially- "listened" to main street, though the RW-propaganda machine has been whipping people into a frenzy on this issue for the past decade. However, the numbers were already coming down. It took me a few seconds to determine that "encounters" were down 75% in Sept 2024 vs Sept 2023. The Felon had nothing to do with that.

As a side note, I read a notice from Border Patrol dated this month. The contamination has already started. It referred to "catch and release", which is not really a thing. That's the phrasing used by Gateway Pundit or OANN to mischaracterize the handling of asylum seekers. Partisanism has creeped into the data being reported, and that's a sad thing. Tainted data is useless data. This is what I meant by professional civil service doing its job without regard to whom is in office/control. Destroy that, and we can trust nothing coming out of government ever. Reports like that should be neutral, just reporting facts without any inflammatory language.

Returning to this topic briefly, the acting director of ICE was reassigned due to Administration dissatisfaction with the pace of arrests:

But the latest shake-up comes as top administration officials remain frustrated with the pace of arrests and deportation numbers. ICE arrests increased during Trump’s first weeks in office, but the pace has since slowed — and arrests do not always equal deportations.

Trump’s vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants was his top campaign promise, but his administration continues to face a slew of challenges to operationalize the ambitious undertaking that will take funding, time and additional resources to scale up.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/21/ice-direc...

This is part of what's driving Thune and the Senate GOP to fast-track a border funding package as the first phase of a two-reconciliation process, instead of "one big beautiful bill." It takes money to dramatically increase the rate of immigrant arrests. A small reconciliation package would be able to get that money to the Administration more quickly than the Big Beautiful Bill, which might end up taking quite a long time indeed to get through the House.

The Administration is still having difficulty getting arrests and deportations up:

So far, federal data shows that the administration has made nearly 23,000 arrests in the past month, up sharply compared with the Biden administration. But daily arrests have fallen since immigration agents exploded out of the gates in the opening days of Mr. Trump’s term. And deportations have not kept pace with the number of arrests, which means that the number of people waiting in ICE detention has surged, straining resources.

Mr. Trump has so far been happy with the progress in driving down the number of border crossings to historic lows, people familiar with his thinking say. But the pace of deportations has been a source of vexation in particular for Mr. Homan and Stephen Miller, the architect of the president’s aggressive immigration policies, who know that the clock is ticking to make good on the president’s plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/tru...

Efforts to supplement the arrest and detention rates with resources from other governmental agencies, like law enforcement and defense, do not appear to have been very successful. So these rates will stay well below where the Administration wants them to be until Congress appropriates more money for the effort.

The Administration is still having difficulty getting arrests and deportations up...

They're having issues on a lot of fronts. The SCOTUS, I read this morning, has said that he can't cut off foreign aid.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-usa...

Hopefully, there is equally quick action regarding the actions of DOGE and Musk. I believe there are several suits already, and one in particular has the potential to invalidate the entire DOGE/Musk paradigm (LegalEagle did a piece on that one). But it needs to move quickly, or it will be moot.

They're having issues on a lot of fronts. The SCOTUS, I read this morning, has said that he can't cut off foreign aid.

That's not precisely true - they just ruled that the lower court had the authority to enforce their prior temporary injunction against cutting it off.

The lower court hadn't yet reached the merits, and the SCOTUS didn't have the merits before them. The DOJ just screwed up in filing the appeal, so the Court didn't have the case in any posture that would allow them to stop the freeze.

OK. Correction/clarification accepted.

Though I doubt anything will change. The Felon and Musk have ordered it. Who's gonna stop them? Or, more specifically, by what mechanism will they be stopped? The courts did their bit for the moment, but someone still has to enforce it. Which is usually the Executive's job, yes? But the Executive doesn't like this order, so I don't expect them to enforce it.

But the Executive doesn't like this order, so I don't expect them to enforce it.

My question too. I guess we are going to find out.

Efforts to supplement the arrest and detention rates with resources from other governmental agencies, like law enforcement and defense, do not appear to have been very successful. So these rates will stay well below where the Administration wants them to be until Congress appropriates more money for the effort.

Easy peasy.
Add a line into the next budget bill.

Meanwhile, border crossings are down, is it 95% or 97%? I can't remember.

Who's gonna stop them? Or, more specifically, by what mechanism will they be stopped? The courts did their bit for the moment, but someone still has to enforce it. Which is usually the Executive's job, yes?

It would be a major step for the federal government to simply refuse to abide by a court order. It is very common for parties to try to frustrate the intention of an order by dragging their feet, or playing around with ambiguities in the language, or similar steps. But when push comes to shove, once things have reached the point where you get a clear, unambiguous requirement to comply, even the current Administration has done so.

If the Administration refused to comply with a direct judicial order, the court could issue an affirmative injunction forcing payment of the funds directly and start imposing civil and criminal sanctions against the agencies and the individuals in the government that were violating the order. The criminal contempt sanctions are subject to the pardon power, but the civil ones are not.

Easy peasy.
Add a line into the next budget bill.

Sure - but when will that happen?

The reason that Thune wanted two reconciliation bills, rather than one big beautiful bill, is because he felt a border funding/energy bill could pass quickly (a matter of months) while the OBBB might drag on well into 2026. Or might not get passed at all - if the Congress can't pass a budget bill and you get pushed into CR territory, they might not be able to add any "lines" into the budget.

Meanwhile, border crossings are down, is it 95% or 97%? I can't remember.

Yep. Back to overstays making up the bulk of the illegal population.

But when push comes to shove, once things have reached the point where you get a clear, unambiguous requirement to comply, even the current Administration has done so.

If the Administration refused to comply with a direct judicial order, the court could issue an affirmative injunction forcing payment of the funds directly and start imposing civil and criminal sanctions against the agencies and the individuals in the government that were violating the order. The criminal contempt sanctions are subject to the pardon power, but the civil ones are not.

I'm hoping there's never a big showdown, because I might not like the outcome. Our system seems to be a little too slow, and that lends to the law being thwarted.

If the Administration refused to comply with a direct judicial order, the court could issue an affirmative injunction forcing payment of the funds directly and start imposing civil and criminal sanctions against the agencies and the individuals in the government that were violating the order. The criminal contempt sanctions are subject to the pardon power, but the civil ones are not.

That's good info. But who enforces the payment, and who enforces the penalties? Is it not the Executive? If so, what reason would they have to obey the order?

Up until recently, it was respect for the system that made stuff like that happen. The Constitution is just a piece of parchment, but it's the agreement to follow it that makes it "in force". When one branch decides they don't like something, a second branch says they won't lose sleep over it (a recent quote from a congress-slime), does it matter that the third branch says "hey, you can't do that"?

Serious question. Not trying to be argumentative or hyperbolic.

When one branch decides they don't like something, a second branch says they won't lose sleep over it (a recent quote from a congress-slime), does it matter that the third branch says "hey, you can't do that"?

Serious question. Not trying to be argumentative or hyperbolic.

Partially because the Executive branch needs the judicial branch in order to do a lot of things. They have to use the courts in order to get other entities (private parties, other governments, etc.) to comply with their rules. So let's say there's a dispute about whether a member of a government board has or has not been fired by Trump: he gave Oldie Oldguy the boot, and replaced him with Novice Newguy. Court rules that the firing of Oldguy was unlawful, and orders that he be reinstated - but the Administration refuses. The court doesn't have troops, so they can't physically force Newguy out of his chair on the dais or to have Oldguy's access card turned back on. But when the Administration tries to enforce any order, decision, regulation, or resolution passed by the Board against any other private party, the court hearing that case can just find against the government on the grounds that the Board wasn't lawfully constituted.

And partially because even if the Executive thinks they can get away with flouting a court order, no one else will act that way. So if a court orders the Administration to pay $X to party Y, and the Administration chooses not to comply, the court has the ability to order the seizure of federal assets to give to party Y. The government's money is stored in various places, but generally it's in the Federal Reserve Banks - which are quasi=private entities that aren't directly under the control of the Administration, and they are going to obey a court order to pay funds.

And finally, it's a massive political undertaking to defy a direct order of the Supreme Court (which is where a lot of this would end up) - and that might be a bridge too far for any Administration to really survive and be able to function politically. Trump has all the attributes of a bully - he relishes fights against weaker folks he knows he can dominate that don't have strong defenders (like USAID), but he generally doesn't like fights that have the chance to really hurt him and will quickly back down rather than take a major risk (like staring down a market downturn to get his tariffs). It's fun to make fun of Congress as not having a spine, but the truth is that Trump has been very smart in his early targets for DOGE - he's gone after agencies and programming and spending that is very unpopular among Republicans. But as soon as he started moving into agencies and programs that the GOP cares about, like Veteran's Affairs, Congress started sending him and Musk some not-so-subtle signals that he is venturing into a bigger problem area and that they want some answers on what's going to happen.

But as soon as he started moving into agencies and programs that the GOP cares about, like Veteran's Affairs, Congress started sending him and Musk some not-so-subtle signals that he is venturing into a bigger problem area and that they want some answers on what's going to happen.

Trying to read the tea leaves in between working on projects, planning trips, and surgeries. Is Medicaid going to take a big hit? I think hits on SS and Medicare would cause quite a ruckus, but Medicaid seems vulnerable, and there's a lot of people dependent on Medicaid. My sister is in a bad way and if the programs in Indiana disappear, my brother and I could have a real problem. Putting this out there for opinions on what may happen to Medicaid.

This just in...the Felon may not care about the guardrails, and definitely doesn't like being told "no".

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/d...

Scholars argue about whether the country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. But most experts, both liberal and conservative, agree that one thing will cross a line: if Trump ignores a Supreme Court ruling. At that point, the checks and balances that the constitutional system relies on could collapse.

And this is the point I was making:

The implication is that courts have power only if people obey them. Judges don’t have police officers or soldiers they can dispatch to enforce their rulings.

I think they rely on the Executive for enforcement.

So far the Felon has tried to go around most obstacles (though he flat-out ignored some rulings already). He may just decide "eff 'em", and ignore it all. Ironically, the SCOTUS made that easier by removing some traditional checks and oversight on the office of POTUS.

Trying to read the tea leaves in between working on projects, planning trips, and surgeries. Is Medicaid going to take a big hit?

Unknown. That's going to depend on the outcome of the reconciliation package - the One Big Beautiful Bill working it's way through the Congress right now. State of play right now is that the House has passed a topline budget blueprint to guide the reconciliation process, but it appears that Johnson had to make some inconsistent promises to get it through. The House hardline budget hawks insisted that it provide for big cuts to spending; the more centrist GOP House members wanted to make sure Medicaid wouldn't be cut. So the blueprint calls for a big cuts (about $880 billion over ten years from Energy and Commerce), but the claim is that this can be done without affecting Medicaid services - just by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the program. There isn't enough other money to deliver that level of cuts without reducing Medicaid funding:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republic...

It is unclear whether leadership can satisfy both the hardliners that the cuts are in there and the House centrists and Senate GOP (who also don't want cuts in Medicaid services) that those cuts won't affect the benefits received by insureds.

>>Meanwhile, border crossings are down, is it 95% or 97%? I can't remember.<<

Yep. Back to overstays making up the bulk of the illegal population. - albaby

=============================

No. The bulk of the illegal population is the accumulation of Biden's 4 years of open borders, plus the illegal migrants who arrived during the years prior to Biden.

The massive reduction achieved by Trump will contribute towards future statistics but the size and composition of the existing illegal population is another matter. Personally, I think the bulk of the existing illegal population is comprised of economic migrants and their chain migration families.

>>Meanwhile, border crossings are down, is it 95% or 97%? I can't remember.<<

Yep. Back to overstays making up the bulk of the illegal population. - albaby

=============================

No. The bulk of the illegal population is the accumulation of Biden's 4 years of open borders, plus the illegal migrants who arrived during the years prior to Biden.

The massive reduction achieved by Trump will contribute towards future statistics but the size and composition of the existing illegal population is another matter. Personally, I think the bulk of the existing illegal population is comprised of economic migrants and their chain migration families.

No. The bulk of the illegal population is the accumulation of Biden's 4 years of open borders, plus the illegal migrants who arrived during the years prior to Biden.

Oh, yes. I wrote quickly, and thus inaccurately - what I was thinking is that the bulk of new additions to the population of illegal migrants will now consist of overstays, a shift away from those who cross illegally towards those who have permission to cross but stay longer than they're allowed.

It is unclear whether leadership can satisfy both the hardliners that the cuts are in there and the House centrists and Senate GOP (who also don't want cuts in Medicaid services) that those cuts won't affect the benefits received by insureds.

Yep, and just right as it might affect me. I'll just have to cross my fingers.

Personally, I think the bulk of the existing illegal population is comprised of economic migrants and their chain migration families.

Perhaps you are confusing your terminology? "Chain migration" is the practice of coming here, getting your citizenship, and then sponsoring family members legally. 1poorlady is doing this with her sister (which, for her preference rating, was expected to happen in about 18 years...she still has about 8 years, though I haven't checked the preference recently). For the record, Melania did that for her parents, IIRC.

That is most certainly NOT illegal, and therefore not "existing illegal population". Also, the asylum-seekers are NOT illegal. So the "bulk of the illegal population" isn't really illegal. They are asylum-seekers (legal). Hopefully you're just a bit sloppy with your terminology, and not back-sliding after all the work albaby did to explain where most of the statistics coming from.

Whether or not you believe the standards for asylum are appropriate is a different topic, even if a valid topic.

Perhaps you are confusing your terminology? "Chain migration" is the practice of coming here, getting your citizenship, and then sponsoring family members legally - 1pg

--------------

Yep, you are right and I stand corrected. Chain migration is another matter.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.