Post New

https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/02/13/minnesota...

People have already forgotten the havoc ICE created in Chicago, including storm troopers shooting a woman five times, then bragging about it?

What city will the storm troopers attack next?

Steve

What city will the storm troopers attack next?

I mean - maybe they won't?

Certain folks in the Administration have long wanted to take a "loud" approach to immigration enforcement. Big, splashy massive operations that make the news, get covered on TV, and impinge on the national consciousness. Something that looks more like a major operation rather than law enforcement, and something with more of a visceral impact than just dry figures in some DHS monthly report. Ramp up the detention</> part of the process, do all those detentions in highly visible public places, get a lot of coverage. That's definitely the inclination of Noem and Miller. It's also the sort of thing that Trump himself would be more attracted to, since he's more of a "showman" rather than a "reader" kind of executive.

But........I don't think anyone in the Administration thinks that Chicago and Minneapolis were good for their deportation efforts. I mean, I'm sure they don't think they did anything wrong. I'm sure they are convinced that this is all the fault of those no-good AWFL protestors who were the ones who should really be blamed.

But it's been bad. Bad for them. The TV's been bad, the narrative has been bad, the actual implementation of the operation has been bad. A mass mobilization of front-line agents ended up causing massive headaches for the Administration. And then, the Administration seems to have utterly failed to plan for what would happen after all these agents detained all these people. They overwhelmed the capacity of the MN detention facilities and federal courts and even their own DOJ staff, resulting in even more bad press and pissing off even Trump appointees in the federal judiciary.

Trump cannot be happy about how it all went down. His team took the gift of the Minnesota fraud scandal and managed to turn it into a self-inflicted wound.

So I think there's space for those within the Administration who have argued for a different approach (like Homan) to push back. Those folks have long advocated for quiet draconian enforcement. Just as terrible for the people experiencing it, but quieter. Individualized detentions by agents all over the country, conducted at night or early morning away from prying eyes and protestors' phone cameras, with agency resources allocated across the entire process (including processing and legal) and not just the flashy "detention" phase.

Reposted for formatting


What city will the storm troopers attack next?

I mean - maybe they won't?

Certain folks in the Administration have long wanted to take a "loud" approach to immigration enforcement. Big, splashy massive operations that make the news, get covered on TV, and impinge on the national consciousness. Something that looks more like a major operation rather than law enforcement, and something with more of a visceral impact than just dry figures in some DHS monthly report. Ramp up the detention part of the process, do all those detentions in highly visible public places, get a lot of coverage. That's definitely the inclination of Noem and Miller. It's also the sort of thing that Trump himself would be more attracted to, since he's more of a "showman" rather than a "reader" kind of executive.

But........I don't think anyone in the Administration thinks that Chicago and Minneapolis were good for their deportation efforts. I mean, I'm sure they don't think they did anything wrong. I'm sure they are convinced that this is all the fault of those no-good AWFL protestors who were the ones who should really be blamed.

But it's been bad. Bad for them. The TV's been bad, the narrative has been bad, the actual implementation of the operation has been bad. A mass mobilization of front-line agents ended up causing massive headaches for the Administration. And then, the Administration seems to have utterly failed to plan for what would happen after all these agents detained all these people. They overwhelmed the capacity of the MN detention facilities and federal courts and even their own DOJ staff, resulting in even more bad press and pissing off even Trump appointees in the federal judiciary.

Trump cannot be happy about how it all went down. His team took the gift of the Minnesota fraud scandal and managed to turn it into a self-inflicted wound.

So I think there's space for those within the Administration who have argued for a different approach (like Homan) to push back. Those folks have long advocated for quiet draconian enforcement. Just as terrible for the people experiencing it, but quieter. Individualized detentions by agents all over the country, conducted at night or early morning away from prying eyes and protestors' phone cameras, with agency resources allocated across the entire process (including processing and legal) and not just the flashy "detention" phase.

Individualized detentions by agents all over the country, conducted at night or early morning away from prying eyes and protestors' phone cameras, with agency resources allocated across the entire process (including processing and legal) and not just the flashy "detention" phase.

IMO, they are unable to do it. Want to--but literally not able to do it.

Insufficient information to do such an operation effectively (as proven in MN).

Their whole plan goes "poof !!" once they grab US citizens (AGAIN).

THEN the crap really hits the fan and covers them completely.

Their total incompetence publicly documented yet again--in an area ("remove illegal aliens") where they have already lost most public confidence.

ridiculously naive.
why think this superficial homan pause is unrelated to DHS funding?

if the existing ICE funding remains un-retracted, or is effectively boosted, this is still way too much for even the gop to grift away.
what the hell do ya think will be done with the money if kinetics are halted?
effective recruits or training? a fleet of cybertrucks?
maybe a civics course for lurkingmarcosheep since public discourse has miserably failed?

But it's been bad. Bad for them. The TV's been bad, the narrative has been bad, the actual implementation of the operation has been bad.

As suggested before, God Trump only cares about his polling with MAGA. Only some 27% of MAGA says ICE went too far. 29% want ICE to go harder.

NOEM is still claiming they removed "4000 criminals" from Minneapolis.

New Milestone in Operation Metro Surge: 4,000+ Criminal Illegals Removed from Minnesota Streets

“President Trump’s commonsense immigration enforcement policies are delivering the public safety results the American people demanded, with more than 4,000 dangerous criminal illegal aliens already arrested in Minnesota

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/new-mi...

But, reportedly, DHS refuses to break down how many of those thousands were actually the "violent criminals" that Noem was screeching about, vs those who were only in the US illegally, or in the US legally, or US citizens. From the net sifter:

As of February 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has faced criticism for not releasing detailed, transparent, and verifiable data regarding the breakdown of criminal versus non-criminal detainees during "Operation Metro Surge" in Minneapolis and the wider Minnesota area.

While DHS officials have publicized high-level figures—claiming over 4,000 arrests in Minnesota since late 2025 and asserting that the focus is on "worst of the worst" criminal illegal aliens—independent analysts and state officials have disputed these numbers and highlighted a lack of transparency regarding specific case details.

Homan continues to threaten violence in Minneapolis, and elsewhere.

Fiery Tom Homan warns agents could return to Minnesota and threatens raids in other cities: ‘We’re coming for you’

“ICE has all the money they want to keep doing the job,” Homan said. “Of course, the men and women long term won’t be getting paid, but will continue to do operations. They’ll continue taking people off the street.”

“Let me be clear: Mass deportations will continue,” the border czar added. “We’re not going back. President Trump promised mass deportation. That’s exactly what the American people are gonna get. We’re gonna enforce immigration loss. If you’re in this country illegally, we’re coming for you.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fiery-tom-homa...

It's a big, bloody, show, because MAGA must have it's circuses.

Steve

As suggested before, God Trump only cares about his polling with MAGA.

He cares about the GOP winning the House in the midterms. He's also incredibly attuned to how his administration is doing on TV, and he's acutely aware that this is not a good look for him on TV. The fact that even 27% of MAGA thinks ICE went too far is a flashing, blaring, enormous red light for him. The fact that even the Fox News shows he loves to watch, and the conservative TV talking heads he uses as a barometer to see how his policies are playing, were all critical of what's been happening in MN despite being generally predisposed to his immigration agenda? Another major red light. No one was happy with the optics coming out of these "surges." Which is why Noem and Lewandowski were demoted in favor of Homan in Minnesota.

Homan continues to threaten violence in Minneapolis, and elsewhere.

Of course they're not going to stop the deportations. This is a choice between tactics.

ICE has about 20K plus agents. Typically, they're spread around the country. These "surges" were a decision to take a whole bunch of those agents and concentrate them in one particular area. They took more than 2K agents and sent them to Minnesota - about 10% of ICE's resources in a state with less than 2% of the US population. Plus some large number of border patrol agents. This doesn't necessarily increase the overall number of deportations - it just makes ICE's activities super-visible.

But it also created problems. Having very high-visibility operations means your supporters get to see how hard you're working on this issue. But it also means that your operations are more easily targeted by protestors - who also get a lot of visibility. Putting 10% of your agents, and therefore 10% of your detentions, into a single state also put massive disproportionate strain on the rest of the system - your detention facilities, immigration judges, regular federal judges, and your DOJ lawyers. Since those systems weren't "surged" up to be proportional to the surge in detentions in that area, those systems started to fall apart. Bad TV coverage ensued.

Homan's certainly not going to stop the deportations and violence. He's an immigration hardliner too. But we might see the end of the tactic of surging all of it into a narrow geographic area, like a single city, rather than just having it spread somewhat evenly around the country.

Homan's certainly not going to stop the deportations and violence. He's an immigration hardliner too. But we might see the end of the tactic of surging all of it into a narrow geographic area, like a single city, rather than just having it spread somewhat evenly around the country.

Yah. I'd like to see an end to the tactic of grab 'em and sort it out later. The criteria for grabbing is now so low that you can literally grab someone and have someone else make up the reason you grabbed them, and that may happen in a few cases. I do think people who are here illegally aren't entitled to as long and full robust due process as I would want for a citizen, but this large grabbing process leaves me cold due to the appearance of lack of humanity on the part of our government. And I think if it appears that way, it highly likely IS that way. Why do we have quotas for arresting people who are following ICE? Just what is going on here? We've become what we revolted against.

I'm also aghast the LM thinks it's acceptable to lie about Pretti. I mean, we have video showing us that Pretti was highly likely murdered in cold blood after being disabled by pepper spray. What monster defends that?

Yah. I'd like to see an end to the tactic of grab 'em and sort it out later.

Again, that's also a possibility. Minnesota demonstrated pretty clearly that there aren't a lot of benefits to immigration hardliners if you increase detentions (the "grab") beyond the capacity of the detention facilities and your lawyers to process the detainees (the "sort it out"). Sure, you up the arrest count. But you're not deporting any greater number of people, because the "sort it out" bottleneck is what's limiting the number of people who get to the end of the process.

In the meantime, you end up with a lot of very pissed off federal judges - burning off decades of DOJ 'goodwill,' the unstated assumption that the federal government is different from ordinary litigants and has some presumption of proper dealing that a "stranger to the court" might not. DOJ has to be pissed of about that. It puts their lawyers in a terrible position if a judge tells the attorney, "The government is ordered to do X" and the lawyer can't get X to happen.

Homan's certainly not going to stop the deportations and violence. He's an immigration hardliner too. But we might see the end of the tactic of surging all of it into a narrow geographic area, like a single city, rather than just having it spread somewhat evenly around the country.

No matter what Homan wants to do, he is not able to fix his primary problem: Arresting, holding, and deporting US citizens. That is his suicidal kiss of death.

It happens due to the lack of credible information regarding people who *should* be arrested and deported because they ARE "the worst of the worst". Homan is doing nothing to fix his problem because he thinks he can get away with it. LOL !! It will bite him in many ways he has yet to imagine....

Arresting, holding, and deporting US citizens.

There have been several reports of the government buying or leasing warehouses, to be used as concentration camps.

Steve

No matter what Homan wants to do, he is not able to fix his primary problem: Arresting, holding, and deporting US citizens. That is his suicidal kiss of death.

Well, the killing of US citizens is probably more of a primary problem. I think his marching orders are to make sure that stops happening, above all else.

He can reduce the incidence of arresting and holding U.S. citizens by moving away from mass sweeps and back towards targeted detentions: go out to find a specific person identified in advance as not being here legally, rather than rely on trusting agents in the field to make a judgment call on whether someone who says they're a citizen is telling the truth.

In the meantime, you end up with a lot of very pissed off federal judges - burning off decades of DOJ 'goodwill,'

And don't forget the follow on effect of pissed off Federal judges - pissed off rank and file DOJ lawyers. Pissed off enough to resign rather than put their law licenses at risk trying to defend their clients (like ICE and CBP) who aren't following judges' orders.

In the short run, DOJ is seeing a slight shortage of lawyers. In the longer run, DOJ is losing its appeal as a destination for freshly minted lawyers. That's going to lead to long-term shortages of lawyers coming into the job. It's also likely to lead to lesser quality lawyers in the DOJ. Instead of attracting some of the best young lawyers, it may become the destination for lawyers who can't get work elsewhere. I'm sure young lawyers can get paid more working in private practice than the DOJ. But DOJ has a lot of prestige. Lose that prestige, and you lose the main reason to accept the lower pay.

--Peter

moving away from mass sweeps and back towards targeted detentions: go out to find a specific person identified in advance as not being here legally

The mass sweeps CLAIMED to be getting LOTS of "bad people"--but they lied. BAD INTELLIGENCE (or would that be LACK of intelligence--both types).

The mass sweeps CLAIMED to be getting LOTS of "bad people"--but they lied. BAD INTELLIGENCE (or would that be LACK of intelligence--both types).

Several judges have said, publicly, that the majority of people DHS brings before them are either citizens, in the US legally, or, at worst, have committed no crime other than being in the US without papers. But, DHS is keeping the actual numbers secret, so there is no hard evidence they are simply scooping up brown people, for the amusement and satisfaction of MAGA.

Steve

In the short run, DOJ is seeing a slight shortage of lawyers. In the longer run, DOJ is losing its appeal as a destination for freshly minted lawyers.

So, DOJ sees a rotation of staff, to a gaggle of shysters who will say anything, for MONEY.

Keep in mind, Gallup probably did not decide to end their survey of Presidential approval in a vacuum. They were motivated, to shut down any fact based counter to the regime's narrative. The regime can tell everyone it's immigration policy is the most popular the world has ever seen.

Broken bones, burning eyes: How Trump's DHS deploys 'less lethal' weapons on protesters

Federal officers carrying out President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in cities across the country have shot 13 people with guns. But far more often, they have used harsh tactics to scare or repel those they see as getting in their way. The officers, masked and kitted out with military-grade armor and rifles, have faced down peaceful protesters and people who have threatened, obstructed or attacked them, with methods that are less deadly than guns but still inflict grievous injuries. Hundreds have been hurt, and courts in at least four states have found that officers used force inappropriately and indiscriminately.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/articles/brok...

Trump the God will insist that all these people who have been injured are "domestic terrorists", who deserved it, and he will proclaim that 90% of the country approves. There will, eventually, be no pushback, on either point.

MAGA will be told they are fully in support of the tactics being used.

Steve

Well, the killing of US citizens is probably more of a primary problem. I think his marching orders are to make sure that stops happening, above all else.

He can reduce the incidence of arresting and holding U.S. citizens by moving away from mass sweeps and back towards targeted detentions: go out to find a specific person identified in advance as not being here legally, rather than rely on trusting agents in the field to make a judgment call

What is wrong with you? Are you seriously talking about how ICE can jackboot more effectively?!?

Are you seriously talking about how ICE can jackboot more effectively?!?

IMO, no. Why? Easy.

In order to be more effective, they need to have specific targets AND how to find them. They might have a NAME, but that is it. Where is that person? They do NOT have a clue. Remember that old phrase "They all look the same?". ICE is "white blind"--they can ONLY see a non-white target.

Remember the original Chevy song?

Let's hunt ICE today
With a Chevrolet
You might end up with a white skin rug....

Are you seriously talking about how ICE can jackboot more effectively?!?

No, he's not. He talking about how ICE can do their job - which actually IS to find and remove people who do not have permission to be in the country - legally, humanely, and more effectively.

It's not humane, legal, or effective to round up people en masse and dig into their immigration status. It overloads all of the systems related to immigration and deportation.

Holding facilities get more people than they can handle, so inhumane conditions result.

The legal system (courts and DOJ lawyers, in particular) get overwhelmed with cases, so delays and poor judicial decisions result. Legal residents and citizens get caught up in the system and can't get their cases heard quickly to correct the error of being detained in the first place.

Both of these conditions cause protests, which lead to interactions between ordinary citizens and federal agents, for which those agents are not well equipped to handle effectively. This results in protestors getting injured and even killed at the hands of those federal agents. That causes even more protests, forcing the federal agents to spend time on protestors instead of finding and detaining the actual people they are tasked to find.

All in all, very ineffective, turning those federal agents into the jackbooted thugs we know today.

But if they'd do their job right, focusing solely on finding the worst offenders to remove instead of meeting some arbitrary daily numbers promulgated by a sociopath, there would be few errors, few protests, and the actual offenders would be removed more quickly - AND without being jackbooted thugs.

This isn't rocket science. But then again, the current administration isn't filled with rocket scientists. It's filled with power-hungry fools willing to do whatever it takes to stay on the good side of the Fool in Chief and therefore retain their power.

--Peter

No, he's not. He talking about how ICE can do their job - which actually IS to find and remove people who do not have permission to be in the country - legally, humanely, and more effectively.

It's not humane, legal, or effective to round up people en masse and dig into their immigration status. It overloads all of the systems related to immigration and deportation.

It is "spectacle", which is what God on Earth, Trump the Magnificent, wants.

Steve

What is wrong with you? Are you seriously talking about how ICE can jackboot more effectively?!?

As Peter pointed out, no - not how they can "jackboot" more effectively. How they can do their jobs without jackbooting.

One of the major political problems that Democrats have failed to solve, and the progressive base especially, is that there is a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government to play in enforcing immigration laws. We're not going to abolish that governmental function, any more than we are every going to abolish the police. And a sizable majority of Americans want there to be law enforcement, including immigration law enforcement. So Democrats generally need to be able to communicate a policy program on immigration enforcement that accommodates that general desire.

Now, within a system of not-jackbooting immigration enforcement there's a wide variety of positions. You can have a approach to enforcement that prioritizes "the worst of the worst," recognizing that deportation is a very serious consequences that can devastate a person and their family and community in a way that isn't just when imposed on noncriminal violators. Or you can have a super-hardline approach to enforcement that seeks to deport everyone who is in violation of the law, no matter the seriousness of their infraction. Or anywhere in between.

And you can do that in a manner that follows the law and honors due process (or, to the contrary, in a way that doesn't). Again, just like law enforcement. You can have a police department and prosecutor's office that believes it's the best policy to send every single person that's picked up for any crime, even down to a minor drug possession charge or disorderly conduct pinch, to jail/prison for the maximum possible sentence you can get. Or the police and prosecutors can exercise some sense of proportion and attempt at justice, and maybe not send every misdemeanor offender to a maximum sentence. Those two approaches (and all the ones in between) can be done in compliance with the law and due process, but they have dramatically different consequences and costs.

Homan is definitely an immigration hardliner. Without a doubt, he's going to try to bring the hammer down as hard as he can on immigrants. The difference between him and the Noem/Miller approach is that he appears to recognize that you can accomplish more hardline goals by not jackbooting so much, and paying more attention to who you're bringing in and what you're going to do with them after you detain them in advance.

One of the major political problems that Democrats have failed to solve, and the progressive base especially, is that there is a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government to play in enforcing immigration laws.

Absolutely correct. Those who advocate "defund ICE", are just as far off as those who said "defund the police" five years ago, and they are playing into the regime's hands. Obama's administration deported a lot of people, but without the violence. Trump wants the violence. He wants his base to see racist thuggery in action, because that is what MAGA voted for.

Homan is definitely an immigration hardliner. Without a doubt, he's going to try to bring the hammer down as hard as he can on immigrants. The difference between him and the Noem/Miller approach is that he appears to recognize that you can accomplish more hardline goals by not jackbooting so much, and paying more attention to who you're bringing in and what you're going to do with them after you detain them in advance.

Or, maybe the regime is simply pulling back for a moment, to refine it's jackboooting tactics. The Fox Noise poll showed nearly three quarters of MAGA are OK with what they have been doing, or wants ICE to go harder. Then, they will pick another city to attack.

Steve

One of the major political problems that Democrats have failed to solve, and the progressive base especially, is that there is a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government to play in enforcing immigration laws. We're not going to abolish that governmental function, any more than we are every going to abolish the police. And a sizable majority of Americans want there to be law enforcement, including immigration law enforcement. So Democrats generally need to be able to communicate a policy program on immigration enforcement that accommodates that general desire.

Straw man. Democrats were enforcing immigration law, and proposing reforms to enable better enforcement. MAGA lied and obstructed its way to the jack booting policies we see today. Progressives want to see a more humane immigration policy. One that legalizes dreamers, enables family reunification, offers refuge to the oppressed, and enables our economy to continue to benefit from the entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants. You should stop lying about democratic immigration policy.

Now, within a system of not-jackbooting immigration enforcement there's a wide variety of positions. You can have a approach to enforcement that prioritizes "the worst of the worst," recognizing that deportation is a very serious consequences that can devastate a person and their family and community in a way that isn't just when imposed on noncriminal violators. Or you can have a super-hardline approach to enforcement that seeks to deport everyone who is in violation of the law, no matter the seriousness of their infraction. Or anywhere in between.

And you can do that in a manner that follows the law and honors due process (or, to the contrary, in a way that doesn't). Again, just like law enforcement. You can have a police department and prosecutor's office that believes it's the best policy to send every single person that's picked up for any crime, even down to a minor drug possession charge or disorderly conduct pinch, to jail/prison for the maximum possible sentence you can get. Or the police and prosecutors can exercise some sense of proportion and attempt at justice, and maybe not send every misdemeanor offender to a maximum sentence. Those two approaches (and all the ones in between) can be done in compliance with the law and due process, but they have dramatically different consequences and costs.

I’ve already established the problems with this stance. You are fully willing to accept the end of constitutional protections and democracy as long as it’s achieved within the law. Fascism is nothing if not meticulously legalistic in its approach to consolidating authoritarian rule. Legalism provides a cover of legitimacy while fascists legally dismantle democracy. This makes you an apologist for fascist methods of achieving hegemonic power. In your view, the law is all that matters, and the consequences of that law are irrelevant.

I asked you before and I’ll ask you again, what advice would have given MLK or Nelson Mandela in 1959?

Homan is definitely an immigration hardliner. Without a doubt, he's going to try to bring the hammer down as hard as he can on immigrants. The difference between him and the Noem/Miller approach is that he appears to recognize that you can accomplish more hardline goals by not jackbooting so much, and paying more attention to who you're bringing in and what you're going to do with them after you detain them in advance.

Homan is an instrument of Trump authoritarianism, and your apology for him makes you complicit in the policy goals of Trumpism. You’re doing you man’s work legitimating Trumpism as legally defendable.

How do you stop the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance? I’m not sure how your meticulously legalistic approach to this political moment answers the question, especially when combined with your Clintonian dismissal of progressives within the Democratic Party.

Homan is definitely an immigration hardliner. Without a doubt, he's going to try to bring the hammer down as hard as he can on immigrants. The difference between him and the Noem/Miller approach is that he appears to recognize that you can accomplish more hardline goals by not jackbooting so much, and paying more attention to who you're bringing in and what you're going to do with them after you detain them in advance.

Do you think that the reason they aren't going after employers is simply influence in Congress? If employers pay too high a price to hire undocumented migrants, they won't do it. No jobs for them, and they won't come here (or stay here). Seems really simple, but no one in Congress is even suggesting such actions (that I'm aware of). Why?

Playing whack-a-mole with laborers is a losing game...employers can lose one batch of employees, and just replace with another batch, as long as they aren't suffering withering fines. The migrant workers are expendable.

You are fully willing to accept the end of constitutional protections and democracy as long as it’s achieved within the law. Fascism is nothing if not meticulously legalistic in its approach to consolidating authoritarian rule. Legalism provides a cover of legitimacy while fascists legally dismantle democracy. This makes you an apologist for fascist methods of achieving hegemonic power. In your view, the law is all that matters, and the consequences of that law are irrelevant.

I asked you before and I’ll ask you again, what advice would have given MLK or Nelson Mandela in 1959?

That is completely false. I don't support changing the law to be fascistic. I don't think fascistic laws are acceptable merely because they are legal. And MLK and Nelson Mandela were completely in the right to oppose the unjust laws they opposed.

But that's not what's really happening here. Trump hasn't passed any new immigration laws. There hasn't been a new horrible immigration law. The legal framework that the Administration is operating under has been in place for many decades, and was adopted legitimately by non-fascistic Congresses.

It has always been the case that if you are present in the country unlawfully, you are subject to detention and (after due process) deportation. We can - and should - vigorously press back against actions that violate those laws or that violate due process. But the underlying laws are not fascist, and if the Administration were to limit its activities to following the laws it would not be accurate to describe their actions as fascist.

How do you stop the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance? I’m not sure how your meticulously legalistic approach to this political moment answers the question, especially when combined with your Clintonian dismissal of progressives within the Democratic Party.

By resisting the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance. And not by resisting the valid exercise of governmental activity that complies with constitutional protections and effectuates democratic governance simply because you don't like the outcomes.

We live in a country where it is legal for conservatives to win elections. Where it is legal for people who are very much not progressives to make their case to the electorate, to win the right to exercise power, and to make decisions on how that power is to be exercised within the limits of their constitutional authority. That will lead to outcomes that progressives despise when conservatives win - but that's the essence of democratic governance. The people who are elected get to set policy, and as long as that policy isn't outside the Constitutional limits of government they have the right to do it.

"Democratic governance" requires letting the people elect folks you think are terrible. It requires letting the people put officials in office that will pursue policies you think are terrible. That's the tradeoff to have a system that lets you win elections and have the chance to pursue policies that they think are terrible. Part of being the party that wants to stand up for the Constitution is recognizing that the Constitution allocates an enormous amount of power to the Legislature and Executive to make decisions.

The laws that create our immigration system have existed in pretty much its current form since 1952, and have been almost entirely untouched by Trump (who has no ability to advance a legislative agenda due to his many faults). Those laws were not drafted by fascists. The laws themselves are not fascist. The enforcement of those laws strictly is not fascist, so long as that enforcement is done within the strictures of due process. Which makes it a very different situation than that faced by MLK and Mandela....

Do you think that the reason they aren't going after employers is simply influence in Congress? If employers pay too high a price to hire undocumented migrants, they won't do it. No jobs for them, and they won't come here (or stay here). Seems really simple, but no one in Congress is even suggesting such actions (that I'm aware of). Why?

Because they didn't like what happened when they went after employers earlier in the term.

Remember the Hyundai raid in Georgia, back in September? Caused all kinds of problems for them when their efforts ended up jeopardizing the operations of the factory. They did the same thing with farm raids, and restaurant raids, and hotel raids. ICE went big on those during the first few months of the Administration, with predictable results:

The Trump administration has abruptly shifted the focus of its mass deportation campaign, telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to largely pause raids and arrests in the agricultural industry, hotels and restaurants, according to an internal email and three U.S. officials with knowledge of the guidance.

The decision suggested that the scale of President Trump’s mass deportation campaign — an issue that is at the heart of his presidency — is hurting industries and constituencies that he does not want to lose.

https://archive.ph/NgpAk#selection-687.0-691.208

Trump is a very transactional, and in some ways very practical, President. He wants really strict immigration enforcement, but if it starts to have outcomes that hurt him or hurt the constituencies he cares about not losing, he will jettison ideological purity in a New York minute. So it's not so much that Big Ag or Big Hotel or Big Restaurant has influence in Congress (which of course they also do), but because Trump doesn't want to be seen specifically targeting businesses in a way that he will get blowback for.

It has always been the case that if you are present in the country unlawfully, you are subject to detention and (after due process) deportation.

What "due process"?

Trump admin secretly deports nine individuals to Cameroon despite US court protections: Report

The Trump administration covertly deported nine individuals to Cameroon, even though many of them had U.S. court protections preventing such deportations, and none of them was from that African country, according to a report by the New York Times.

Many of these men and women sent to Cameroon on a flight from Alexandria, Louisiana, on 14 January did not know their destination until they were put on a Department of Homeland Security flight and placed in handcuffs and chains, the publication said, citing government documents and attorneys for the deportees.

https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/trump-admin-...

As noted before, we are, increasingly, seeing how much USian "justice" and "rule of law" depends on the actors being people of good will, as it is apparent, there are holes in the laws large enough to fly a 747 full of brown people in chains through.

The people who are elected get to set policy, and as long as that policy isn't outside the Constitutional limits of government they have the right to do it.

The argument put forward by the defense in the second impeachment was, words to the effect: the President sets policy in the national interest, as he sees it. If he decides it is in the national interest to ignore an election, and stay in power, then it's OK to do so"

By resisting the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance.

That gets you tagged as a "domestic terrorist".

Steve

As noted before, we are, increasingly, seeing how much USian "justice" and "rule of law" depends on the actors being people of good will, as it is apparent, there are holes in the laws large enough to fly a 747 full of brown people in chains through.

No, there are not. Those folks were deported contrary to the law, not because the law has a hole in it. And doing so was a gross injustice, and deserves resistance and accountability.

But the point I have been trying to make is that the Administration doesn't need to be doing stuff like that. It's not necessary, since virtually all folks who are here without authorization can be deported if you just go through the right process. Not because those laws are fascist or authoritarian, but because it is the general law that if you're here unlawfully you don't acquire a right to stay here.

Yes, the cruelty is the point. And that's why the faction that favors those big showy visible cruelties has been able to set policy for the most part. But the Administration is starting to see that the cruelty is also very counterproductive. For example, the nine individuals who were unlawfully sent to Cameroon are going to consume massive amounts of DOJ resources in trying to fight that, and eventually unwind it (once the judge reaches whatever sanctions force compliance, like hauling the ICE agency director). The Administration is short on DOJ immigration resources. So wasting them on just nine people like this is pretty dumb.

There are people in the administration that have argued for a smarter approach to hardline immigration enforcement, meaning not "surging" more arresting agents into an area than the infrastructure can handle, not taking shortcuts, not failing to comply with court orders, and not patently violating due process. I don't know whether that faction will prevail in the internal debates - but it's possible that they might, which is why I raise the possibility that we might not see a repeat of Chicago/Minnesota. Not because I think they've become more sensitive to immigrants, but because it didn't get a desirable outcome for the Administration.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/texas-imm...

But two federal district court judges in Texas, who are bound by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit’s ruling, said the 2-1 decision left an opening for them to continue granting immigrants’ release on other grounds, primarily constitutional arguments against detaining people who have established roots in the U.S. without due process. Those roots amount, in legal parlance, to a “liberty interest” that the Constitution says cannot be taken away without at least a hearing before a neutral judge.

“This conclusion is not changed by the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision,” Judge Kathleen Cardone, an El Paso based appointee of George W. Bush, ruled late Monday in at least five cases, concluding that the circuit’s decision “has no bearing on this Court’s determination of whether [the petitioner] is being detained in violation of his constitutional right to procedural due process.”

Judge David Briones, an El Paso-based Clinton appointee, reached a similar conclusion.

“The Court reiterates its original holding that noncitizens who have ‘established connections’ in the United States by virtue of living in the country for a substantial period acquire a liberty interest in being free from government detention without due process of law,” Briones wrote.

Remember the Hyundai raid in Georgia, back in September? Caused all kinds of problems for them when their efforts ended up jeopardizing the operations of the factory.

But that wouldn't happen. Follow me here:

step 1 - pass the law against hiring undocumented workers. Fine is $10K per worker. (Arbitrary...make it more, if you like.)
step 2 - give companies time to get their ducks in a row, e.g. sign-up with e-Verify (my company used that)
step 3 - any raid will almost certainly not find anyone because companies aren't going to want to pay the stiff fines

If they are relying on undocumented labor, then there's a problem. Either labor getting documents, or the desire to exploit the labor.

If MAGA isn't happy with that, then they're hypocrites. I know some on the far-left won't like it, but the "let everyone in" wing of the party is pretty small. The right should be thrilled. If they aren't, then they don't really want the problem fixed (which is what I suspect because of things like the Hyundai factory you mentioned, and the "pausing" of raids).

Then you can get political and call them out to their MAGA-ite supporters, and maybe take over enough of government to get actual reforms (like affordable worker visas that don't have a path to citizenship, DREAMERs, etc.). Again, the right should like the no-path-to-citizenship bit...I'm trying to be reasonable and compromise.

step 1 - pass the law against hiring undocumented workers. Fine is $10K per worker. (Arbitrary...make it more, if you like.)
step 2 - give companies time to get their ducks in a row, e.g. sign-up with e-Verify (my company used that)
step 3 - any raid will almost certainly not find anyone because companies aren't going to want to pay the stiff fines

Not going to happen. There's no way to get a law on immigration through Congress anyway, so it stops at step one. And it's already against the law, with potentially steep consequences, to hire illegal workers today. Companies do it because the changes of workplace enforcement are so low, which means step three isn't going to have the effect you are looking for.

If MAGA isn't happy with that, then they're hypocrites. I know some on the far-left won't like it, but the "let everyone in" wing of the party is pretty small. The right should be thrilled. If they aren't, then they don't really want the problem fixed (which is what I suspect because of things like the Hyundai factory you mentioned, and the "pausing" of raids).

The obstacle isn't whether MAGA would be happy with it. It's whether the non-MAGA GOP and GOP-leaning independents would be happy with it, since MAGA alone isn't enough to win a majority (either the Presidency or Congress). And decimating the agriculture, construction, and hospitality sectors with aggressive workplace will be pretty unpopular with those constituencies. I'm sure the Steven Miller/Steve Bannon wing of the GOP would be delighted with draconian workplace enforcement, but the other parts of the party don't think it's worth the consequences.

Interesting. I have never heard of a company being fined. If companies are fined, they would be less likely to employ them.

I think my proposal is far less draconian than what they're doing.

Also, I have to respectfully disagree on MAGA. They're running the government right now, so they clearly are the majority. There are only a handful of GOP congresspeople speaking out. Last I knew, five or six. The rest apparently are fine with it.

Also, you are implying that the right is OK with the exploitive nature of the current system? Wink wink, nudge nudge "we want the illegals gone". The implication is they want their labor but for them to have no recourse other than deportation if they get "uppity".

I have never heard of a company being fined.

'In 2009, American Apparel fired approximately 1,600 to 1,800 factory workers—nearly one-third of its Los Angeles workforce—after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) audit revealed they were unauthorized to work. Despite the company's "sweatshop-free" branding, this, along with subsequent legal issues and financial trouble, significantly impacted production.

Key details regarding the 2009 American Apparel immigration audit:

Audit Findings: ICE investigators identified about 1,800 employees with questionable documentation, leading to the termination of 1,600 who could not prove their legal status.
Investigation Origin: The audit began in January 2008, prior to the mass firings in late 2009.

Company Stance: Founder Dov Charney, known for pro-immigrant views, was "deeply saddened" by the firings but complied with the law. The company maintained it did not willingly hire unauthorized workers.

Impact on Business: The loss of experienced workers forced a scramble for replacements and contributed to financial pressures, including a $4.4 million reduction in operating income in early 2010.

Shareholder Lawsuits: The company faced lawsuits from shareholders claiming management failed to disclose the risks associated with its reliance on a largely immigrant workforce.

Subsequent Events: The company later entered bankruptcy in 2015 and 2016 before being acquired and moving away from its exclusive "Made in USA" model.'

'In 2009, American Apparel fired approximately 1,600 to 1,800 factory workers...

OK. Just checked. They weren't fined. They had other issues, as you quoted, but they weren't fined. Nobody went to jail, either, from what I can tell.

It still turned out badly for them, of course. But a certainty of fines may result in more compliance, rather than just hoping you don't get raided.

My point remains that we (i.e. the government) is going after the wrong end of the problem. Make it unprofitable/risky for employers.** As a side benefit, if business gets upset then real change might happen. Right now, they mostly aren't upset because they can exploit their workers, and at most have some of them caught and deported. With a few exceptions (like American Apparel), very low risk for the employers.



**Kinda/sorta similar to the drug problem. As long as there is demand in the US, there will be suppliers. Attacking the suppliers does nothing. You have to address the demand.

Also, I have to respectfully disagree on MAGA. They're running the government right now, so they clearly are the majority.

They're the majority of the majority - but that doesn't mean they themselves are the majority of the entire population. If you're 60% of 60%, you'll run the government - but be only about a third of the people, and not nearly enough to be a majority coalition just by yourself.

Also, you are implying that the right is OK with the exploitive nature of the current system? Wink wink, nudge nudge "we want the illegals gone". The implication is they want their labor but for them to have no recourse other than deportation if they get "uppity".

There's no monolithic "the right" on an issue like illegal immigration. There are different factions on the right that have different opinions about illegal immigration, and what they dislike about it. There are nativist MAGA's, who would be perfectly happy with whatever consequences come from mass deportations. There are the business conservatives who want a workforce for their ag, hospitality, and construction industries.

And then there are the social conservatives who are generally against illegal immigration but don't feel strongly enough about the otherwise law-abiding folks who are here without authorization to be willing to actually suffer any consequences. These are the analogs to the left-of-center folks in the Democratic coalition who want the government to do something about climate change, but don't want to bear any significant economic costs. They want a certain policy - and genuinely want it - but get very upset if that policy ends up causing any negative unintended consequences.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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