Tag: immigration
Border State Sheriffs Defying Trump On Mass Deportation Scheme

Border State Sheriffs Defying Trump On Mass Deportation Scheme

President-elect Donald Trump's advisors have been hoping county sheriffs in border states will assist with the incoming administration's mass deportation campaign. But several sheriffs are already publicly promising to not lift a finger.

According to a Tuesday report in WIRED magazine, top Trump immigration advisors like Tom Homan and Stephen Miller have been having conversations with several far-right sheriffs who have expressed an interest in helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) remove immigrants from the United States. But that effort is unlikely to pick up traction, both for legal reasons and because other sheriffs have said they already have their hands full and don't want to take on more work.

Currently, ICE's 287(g) program allows for state and local law enforcement to collaborate with ICE in its efforts "to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of noncitizens." However, this does not include sheriffs themselves rounding up and detaining undocumented immigrants.

Additionally, no federal funding has been appropriated to any sheriffs' offices that help ICE, meaning just 125 out of 3,081 sheriff's offices in the U.S. have signed up. And Yuma County, Arizona Sheriff Leon Wilmot told WIRED that the Supreme Court has already established that enforcing immigration law is outside the jurisdiction of local police departments and sheriffs' offices.

"[T]hat's not our realm of responsibility," Wilmot said. "If we wanted to do immigration law, we would go work for Border Patrol."

The push for sheriffs to assist the incoming administration has been led by retired sheriff Tom Mack, who is the head of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). Mack told WIRED he's been exchanging voice and text messages with Homan about getting more sheriffs involved with deportations. Homan has previously promised to build "the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen." But Wilmot said "no one listens to" Mack, that he "hasn't been a sheriff in a long time" and that he "pushes his own agenda."

Santa Cruz County Sheriff David Hathaway, who is a Democrat, told WIRED that he wasn't invited to an event Homan hosted in his state last month, even though Hathaway's jurisdiction includes some of the nation's biggest ports of entry. He added that he would refuse any calls to help the Trump administration deport immigrants, as it would hurt his standing in his county.

"I'm not going to cooperate, because 95 percent of the residents of the town where I live, where my county is, are Hispanic,” Hathaway said. “I'm not going to go checking the documents of practically every single person in my county to determine their immigration status, because that would create distrust between law enforcement and all the people in my community."

The sheriffs bucking calls to assist with mass deportations even include some of Trump's biggest supporters in the law enforcement community. Livingston County, Michigan Sheriff Mike Murphy — who hosted a pro-Trump rally in a building owned by the sheriff's office — told the outlet that he isn't interested in using county resources to help with federal immigration law enforcement.

"I still have a county to do police work in,” Murphy said. “Just because the president says, 'Hey, go out and round them up,' that is not all of a sudden gonna move to the top of my priority list. If somebody's house is getting broken into, that's my priority. If somebody's involved in an injury crash and they're laying on the side of the road, that's my priority. I've got cases that are open.”

Other border state sheriffs who have come out against calls to help the Trump administration round up migrants include Val Verde County, Texas Sheriff Joe Frank Martinez and Brewster County, Texas Sheriff Ronny Dodson. According to Dodson, the incoming Trump administration giving sheriffs the authority to jail migrants could "break" county law enforcement.

"I’m not gonna let the government tell me what to do in my job," Dodson said.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

Trashing Constitution, Trump Says He'll Order End To Birthright Citizenship

After running on a promise to end birthright citizenship, a victorious Donald Trump says he is planning on ending it on day one of his presidency. It’s a tall order given that the text of the 14th Amendment explicitly guarantees it to all people born on U.S. soil, but everyone knows Trump isn’t remotely interested in whether something is unconstitutional.

To anyone not enraptured by a racist fantasy of deporting millions of people, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment is extremely clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” If you were born here, regardless of your parents' citizenship status, you’re a citizen.

It’s a practice Trump hates and one he repeatedly lies about, claiming only America has it. That’s been repeatedly debunked, as some three dozen other countries bestow it, including Canada and Mexico. However, even if we were the only country with it, that wouldn’t negate its constitutionality, necessity, or importance.

The 14th was among the Reconstruction Amendments enacted after the Civil War. It guaranteed citizenship to formerly enslaved people, overturning the shameful Dred Scott decision from 1857. In that notorious ruling, the Supreme Court held that a “free Negro” whose ancestors had been brought to this country and then sold into slavery was not a citizen of the United States.

Granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people wasn’t just the right thing to do—it was a necessity in order for the country to move on in unison after the Civil War. Otherwise, former slaveholding states would have remained able to define “citizen” in such a way that would exclude Black people.

The issue these days, of course, is whether that guarantee was limited to the descendants of formerly enslaved people or includes anyone born here, regardless of parentage. For years, lawyer John Eastman has been pushing the idea that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of noncitizens because those noncitizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

This thought process led Eastman to declare that Vice President Kamala Harris may not be a citizen if her parents were only here with temporary permission under student visas. These days, Eastman is better known as a vociferous proponent of the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. He is also one of the architects of the fake elector scheme, for which he now faces criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia and disbarment in California. Yeah, that’s definitely the person you want determining who gets to be a citizen.

Trump is currently running around saying that he can end birthright citizenship via an executive order, a stance he’s pushed since 2018. Anyone who made it through high school civics probably knows that an executive order can’t overrule the Constitution, making that plan a bit dicey. Even getting the incoming GOP-led House and Senate to sign on to a bill doesn’t change the Constitution: That takes 38 of the 50 states ratifying an amendment.

Another problem Trump faces is that the Supreme Court already ruled over 100 years ago that a child born to Chinese citizens residing in the country at the time of his birth was a citizen. Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, though, who knows whether that long-standing precedent would hold any sway. It’s easy to imagine the conservative majority buying Fifth Circuit Judge James C. Ho’s brand new argument that undocumented people should be considered “invading aliens” and that birthright citizenship “obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion.”

There’s no precedent or support for this idea; it’s basically something Ho made up out of whole cloth after Trump won the election last month. Ho had previously been an enthusiastic supporter of birthright citizenship, but now that he’s perpetually auditioning for a future Supreme Court seat, he had to figure out a way to align himself with Trump.

None of this means anyone should rest easy and assume the dismantling of birthright citizenship won’t come to some degree of fruition. Eternally ghoulish Trump adviser Stephen Miller has proposed refusing to issue citizenship documents such as passports and social security numbers to children born here but whose parents are not citizens. On “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Trump went a step further and said he’d just deport children who are citizens along with their undocumented parents because “I don’t want to be breaking up families.”

Speaking of families, Trump critics have pointed out that his children Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and Barron were all born to mothers who were not citizens at the time of their births and speculated that Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship would apply to them. That’s a nope, because Trump’s plan would still grant birthright citizenship to children when one of two parents is a citizen. How convenient.

Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship on his first day in office, which likely means the effort will be as chaotic as the Muslim travel ban he threw together a few days after his inauguration in 2017 and was ultimately struck down by the courts. The law will likely catch up with him again, but not before he does some serious damage.

Xenophobia is Trump’s most deeply held principle, and he’ll do anything to indulge it—no matter the consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Why Red States Will Rue Trump's Plan To Deport Undocumented Immigrants

Why Red States Will Rue Trump's Plan To Deport Undocumented Immigrants

Whether immigration played a significant role in Donald Trump’s presidential victory this November, he and his nascent administration have certainly read the election results as a mandate to deliver on his promises of mass deportations.

Yet talk is easier than action, and if carried out, the costs will be disproportionately borne by red states and areas.

Half of all undocumented immigrants in the country live in Florida, Texas, and California, according to data compiled by the American Immigration Council. But while California will put up every legal roadblock and refuse to assist federal authorities in targeting its own undocumented population, Texas and Florida may gleefully participate.

In Florida, 5% of the population is undocumented, or 1.1 million people, and that doesn’t include immigrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti residing under temporary protected status, which will clearly be targeted by the Trump administration.

If emptied out of all undocumented immigrants, Florida would lose $1.8 billion in tax revenue, while Texas would lose nearly $5 billion, while those same immigrants are mostly ineligible for government benefits. That’s free money for the states.

Then there are the economic consequences—if you remove millions of low-wage workers, everything from agriculture, to construction, to industries like hospitality suddenly become dramatically more expensive. Florida’s 2023 anti-immigrant law, which cracked down on businesses hiring undocumented workers, could end up costing the state over $12 billion a year. Crops are rotting in the field, as farms lack the labor for harvest. Roofing companies, swamped with work after hurricane season, lack workers to patch up homes.

And what happens when demand is greater than supply? Trump is going to have a hard time fulfilling promises of lowering prices when his signature policies (deportation and tariffs) are both highly inflationary.

For industries like agriculture and construction, the cost of mass deportations is so high and obvious that it is downright shocking that they would vote as Republican as they did. Nationally, 64 percent of rural voters—heavily dependent on agriculture—voted for Trump.

The numbers are even more stark in counties classified as “farming dependent” by the United States Department of Agriculture. Of the 444 farming-dependent counties, Trump won 433 of them by an average of 78 perccent. The outliers? They were mostly Black-majority farming counties along the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

So it’s kind of pathetic watching industry agricultural groups now beg Trump to spare their workers from the very thing they voted for. (These are the same people who are also freaked out about tariffs and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)

There are electoral ramifications as well. Undocumented immigrants are counted by the census and are included for purposes of reapportionment, which impacts the Electoral College. Given that California and New York are expected to lose as many as 7-8 seats to Texas and Florida, a massive shift in the undocumented population would certainly affect these projections. If these projections pan out, a Democratic presidential nominee will need more than just the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to win the White House (unlike today).

The combination of expulsions, self-deportations (as immigrants head back home on their own), and migratory shifts from unsafe red states to sanctuary blue states could very well dramatically reshape the reapportionment math. It will bear watching if Trump disproportionately targets blue states for this very reason, despite the aggressively anti-immigrant governors in Florida and Texas, happy to lend the feds a helpful hand.

Trump’s biggest challenge, of course, is reality. How do you deport 12 million undocumented workers? The United States Border Patrol has less than 20,000 agents as of 2022, and just under 17,000 of those actually patrolling the border.

Where are they going to get the manpower to raid Los Angeles, Houston, Omaha, and Peoria in any appreciable numbers? Some estimates place the cost of deportations at hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Without state support, the feds will have limited options. “It’s not going to be successful, as long as we have sanctuary cities and states that refuse to allow local and state police departments to work with ICE,” former Trump U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Mark Morgan told Stateline.

So what is the benefit of a plan that is horrifically expensive, drives prices up for everyone, disproportionately harms rural America and red states, and may actually give blue states a population boost ahead of the 2030 census?

There is a very real chance that Trump’s mass deportation effort accounts to little more than typical Trump bluster and some high-profile raids. But if Texas and Florida lean in hard to help out in their own states, self-deportation back to their homelands and internal migration to safer blue states may very well end up backfiring on Republicans with the only thing they truly care about—their ability to wield power.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Tom Homan

Fox Hosts Offer Public Relations Advice To Promote Mass Deportations

Fox News hosts are advising the incoming Trump administration to hire public relations professionals so it can control coverage of the fallout from immigration policies like mass deportation.

On Monday’s edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said incoming Trump “border czar” Tom Homan “needs a PR team” once the administration begins advancing its immigration agenda.

Kilmeade laid out a scenario where liberal critics of Homan might discuss children and families affected by the new policies.

“I think it’s important, when Tom Homan rolls this out, they want to show the image of Tom Homan callously saying these families that have been here nine years and they’re just trying to work under the radar they’re the problem,” Kilmeade added.

Lawrence Jones, his fellow co-host, agreed. “You know what’s going to happen on the other side. You’re going to have AOC and company crying at the gates, again.” Jones concluded, “You’ve got to have a media strategy.”

His reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was a frequently mentioned (in conservative circles) 2018 protest she participated in against the Trump administration’s family separation policy and children being housed in a tent city in El Paso, Texas.

The international and domestic fallout to the separation policy was a hallmark of Trump’s first term and what the Fox hosts are hoping to avoid via their on-air advice. Concerns are elevated following a recent appearance from Homan on Fox where he said the incoming administration would pursue cutting off federal funds from states whose governors refuse to comply with mass deportation.

Not only was the United States criticized around the world on family separation, but reunification of those families is also a project that the Biden administration has had to focus on for four years—with some families still torn apart.

The advice offered by the Fox hosts is not merely punditry, but an acknowledgement that there is a revolving door between the political world around Trump and the conservative network. Trump hires faces from Fox, implements Fox-backed policies, and Fox responds by manipulating the news to assist Trump and amplifying pro-Trump rhetoric and ideas.

In this instance Fox is effectively giving Trump a heads-up and marching orders, and history shows he is very likely to do as instructed.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World