Mass Deportation - Planning underway— Tom Homan to be “Border Czar”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 396
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
And the Supreme Court would just deploy its favorite new technique of mooting issues that it doesn't want to decide.

It will just stay the lower court decision. And then the raids will go on, and when the case reaches finality, it will all be over.
Click to expand...
That seems more likely than Trump just ignoring court orders
 
nycfan said:
But a lot of Trump supporters are already wishcasting how this will take care of itself via self-deportation before Trump takes office. They will just wake up to find the “illegals” have disappeared from their town without anyone having to suffer any unpleasantness.
Click to expand...
That is certainly going to be the maga talking point...
 
www.thetimes.com

Tom Homan, the man who will ‘send in the troops’ to tackle migration

Donald Trump has appointed a former immigration boss as ‘border tsar’ as part of his threat to remove all 20 million people thought to be in America illegally
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com

Tom Homan, the man who will ‘send in the troops’ to tackle migration​


Donald Trump has appointed a former immigration boss as ‘border tsar’ as part of his threat to remove all 20 million people thought to be in America illegally​


"...Tom Homan, former head of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during Trump’s first term, said that he would spearhead a programme of unprecedented scope where every person who is in the US illegally — which he estimates to be about 20 million people — would be at risk of deportation.

“Bottom line: if you’re in the country illegally, you’re not off the table,” he said. “You’ve got to prioritise where you go first, but again, it’s a crime to enter this country illegally.”

In an interview with The Sunday Times before he was confirmed as Trump’s “border tsar” Homan said that he would also move to completely shut down the US southern border, build a wall and restart Trump’s “remain in Mexico” programme, under which migrants waited across the border to have their asylum applications processed

... Homan said he would seek to establish agreements, similar to the UK’s ill-fated Rwanda scheme, under which asylum seekers would wait in third countries for their applications to be processed. “We’d certainly reach out to other countries,” he said.

... He dismissed claims that the administration would be building “concentration camps” to hold millions of people caught in massive sweeps of neighbourhoods.

Homan did, however, say that those slated for deportation would be held in facilities including newly built holding centres and that the military’s existing role in transporting them could be expanded to account for the rising number of deportees. Raids would follow the existing ICE rulebook, he said, and would be targeted in specific locations.

... Trump, who has spoken about immigrants “poisoning the blood” of the country, has floated the idea of invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a law more than 200 years old that allows the president to deport non-citizens who come from a country that the US is at war with.

...Homan would seek to expand the existing role of the US military in assisting in deportations, he said.

“The military has helped on the border for the last six presidents, so it’s nothing new that the DoD [Department of Defence] will assist,” he said. “I don’t see them making arrests, they don’t have immigration authority, but they can certainly do transportation. They can certainly do infrastructure-building, they can certainly help build these facilities and help finish the wall with the Army Corps of Engineers.”

... If those fleeing persecution passed through another safe country on the way to the US, Homan said, they should seek asylum there.
 
HeelingAg said:
I have no confidence ttump will give two shits about court decisions. My assumption is he'll essentially say "I control the guys with the guns, and you have words on paper. Fly a kite."
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what his hero Andrew Jackson did when it came to enforcing Supreme Court rulings that the Cherokee could keep their ancestral lands in the Southeast. He pretty much said that the Chief Justice had made his ruling and so he could enforce it. Which is basically a violation of his oath to enforce the law, including Supreme Court rulings. But of course Jackson got away with it because most white Southerners supported him instead of the Supreme Court - they wanted the Cherokee's lands. So I don't have any problem seeing Trump thumbing his nose at any lower court rulings.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
That's pretty much what his hero Andrew Jackson did when it came to enforcing Supreme Court rulings that the Cherokee could keep their ancestral lands in the Southeast. He pretty much said that the Chief Justice had made his ruling and so he could enforce it. Which is basically a violation of his oath to enforce the law, including Supreme Court rulings. But of course Jackson got away with it because most white Southerners supported him instead of the Supreme Court - they wanted the Cherokee's lands. So I don't have any problem seeing Trump thumbing his nose at any lower court rulings.
Click to expand...
The Jackson quote is not actually true. And there were a number of technical reasons why there was never any disobedience of the Court by Jackson. And I suspect the same would happen with Trump. I think it is unlikely that he defies any court order openly. He will work the system to achieve the same result perhaps. But I don't think it helps him politically to get in a direct pissing match with the court.

Here is a great Reddit thread and probably more than you ever wanted to know about Worcester v. Georgia

 
Some people have argued that SCOTUS didn't give the president a green light to do just anything, it is just that he can't be criminally prosecuted for his actions.

That's sort of a distinction without a difference. If Trump can't be prosecuted after he leaves office, he'll do damn well what he pleases. He has the DOJ. He has the army. The only thing that could stop Trump is power and we gave all of the power to him.
lawtig02 said:
Here's the relevant part of the transcript. Sorry for the length. I cut out a lot of it.


I tried talking to Tom Homan. He's rumored to be the next ICE director under Trump but has denied there's a written plan for mass deportations. And he ghosted me. Jason Houser, however, was eager to talk. He was the chief of staff for ICE under Biden for a couple years, has been working for DHS on and off since 9/11, mostly in enforcement.

* * *

Jason thinks that, first of all, the new Trump administration will immediately start to prep for this-- like, the day after the election, this week. They would start talking to law enforcement in different cities and getting them to agree to cooperate, hit the ground running in January. ICE would talk to home countries to get them to agree to take people back. And after those two things align, Jason says, ICE could decide to deport someone and they'd be out of the country within 24 hours.

Jason Houser​

I think the first 90 days is going to be hell. You're going to see the buses. You're going to see the migrants in your home-- not just blue cities, red cities-- Miami, Houston, Charlotte-- like, red states-- Kansas City, St. Louis.

You're going to see kids not in your schools. You're going to know where they're at because they're waiting in a detention cell and they have cell phones. You're going to see it in social media. You're going to see businesses not be able to open up because their workers didn't show up. You're going to see businesses being raided. And it's going to become more intimate.

This isn't going to be about separating a family at the border, that somebody doesn't know that family member. You're talking about separations and movements in your communities where you're going to know the guy-- Bill, Juan, Luis. You're going to know the individuals.

* * *​

Nadia Reiman​

Do you think there would be raids, then, in the first 100 days?

Jason Houser​

I think there would be raids within the first three weeks.

Nadia Reiman​

Really?

Jason Houser​

Yeah. Those are not hard to turn on. Like, to operationalize those, those aren't hard.

Nadia Reiman​

Where? Where would they do them?

Jason Houser​

You would go back to where there's big ICE and Customs and Border Protection resources to do enforcement. And you would do them in communities that would show the most cruelty. So there's nothing that would stop a Trump administration from going into the workplace, going into our hospitality sector, going into restaurants or businesses, and arresting individuals at scale.

Nadia Reiman​

Can you walk through what that would look like? What do you think that would look like?

Jason Houser​

Well, I think it would be very easy to focus on industries that have large numbers and high numbers of migrants working within them. What would stop them from going into a meat processing plant in Virginia? Say there's a couple hundred migrants. There's 80 on shift that day. You go in, you know there's one individual there that has a final order of removal, maybe has a nonviolent criminal background.

You go in, you do the raid, you line all the workers up, and you start checking status of each and every one of them, right? Or maybe you just arrest them all, bring them into detention, and then do the checks to see who is removable. There's nothing that could stop ICE, at that point, from just bringing people into custody, detaining them, and then figuring out who is removable at that time.

Nadia Reiman​

Tom Homan has not denied this, by the way. He's said publicly something like this would be necessary. Homan also said he would do national security threats first-- but then raids, sure. Jason says the raids under a 2.0 Trump administration could be more militarized, with SWAT-style teams. That's not how they've been done in the past. He also told me he thinks nothing would stop ICE from going into hospitals or schools or churches. Normally, ICE doesn't do that. But this is just a policy, not a law.

* * *

Nadia Reiman​

At the end of the 100 days, how many people do you think will be gone?

Jason Houser​

Let's just say this. Let's say all rules are out the-- and I can remove people that aren't removable. Like, I'm going to send them to third-party countries. ICE has 48,000 people in its custody now. ICE has 14 ICE planes that are hardened planes. They hold 135-- 135 souls. I need more of those. But while I'm sending those 48,000, I'm probably going to go out and bring another 50,000 to 100,000 into custody. So if you're talking 30 to 60 days, you could remove 150,000 to 200,000 people.

Nadia Reiman​

So 200,000 people in the first 60 days?

Jason Houser​

Yeah.

Nadia Reiman​

So in the first 100, that puts you at what, how many?

Jason Houser​

If all rules are gone and I can remove them anywhere, you could do a million.

Nadia Reiman​

A million people. Of course, Jason's predicting here, assuming there will be no major roadblocks. But the Brennan Center did this thing where they stress tested with experts and government people whether mass deportations could be done, gamed this all out. In their simulations, funding was a big obstacle right away, so their deportation numbers weren't as large as Jason's.

But that was also assuming that the House wouldn't go Republican, which is looking like it will be as I record this. That would make Jason's math of a million people more possible.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more efficient if they used cattle cars.

SMH
 
Calheel said:
I would think the ACLU could get a judge to enjoin this. The courts have been pretty strict on DUI checkpoints under the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment doesn't/shouldn't allow ICE to do sweeps of businesses with a high number of migrants that also employ lawful US citizens and green card holders. You can't just arrest everybody and figure it out later. You need probable cause to arrest a US citizen.
Click to expand...
Well you once needed probably cause; that was before presidential immunity. Trump can just say "ignore probable cause" and it's likely legal now under this Supreme Court.
 
Calheel said:
Biden had 1.5 million plus deportations and 3 million plus expulsions. 300k would be a drop in the bucket compared to Biden.
Click to expand...
But, the Trump PR will be brilliant AND mainstream media will suck up to the Trump……right-wing media will praise and EXTOL Trump’s immigration “policy” - “TRUMP closed the border! We are safe!”
 
altmin said:
Well you once needed probably cause; that was before presidential immunity. Trump can just say "ignore probable cause" and it's likely legal now under this Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I think the justices like power. I don't think there are five votes for "we agree with whatever Trump thinks." I only see three votes for that view. That doesn't mean they won't be pro-Trump in most cases, just that I don't see them as a rubber stamp.

In particular, I'd think they would have an issue with mass arrests without probable cause unless they are going to make an interior-border exception to such arrests -- and I don't think they would. I also don't think they would silent docket it without any ruling ever.
 
superrific said:
That remains to be seen. It depends on how he wants to use it. One would hope that our top brass would refuse to follow illegal orders.
Click to expand...
The plans in P2025 or to greatly reduce the number of generals in the armed forces. I think that is code for only keeping the sufficiently loyal ones.

He will also replace most in the DOJ. So even if the military rank and file won’t do something, he can get his DOJ to do it and the generals he keeps around will just sit back and allow it to happen.
 
altmin said:
Well you once needed probably cause; that was before presidential immunity. Trump can just say "ignore probable cause" and it's likely legal now under this Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Not legal but he can’t be punished for it. So there is nothing stopping him fro trying.

Well, except impeachment. I kid.
 
I think some of you all who argue that Trump will follow court orders just don’t understand that we are in a new era that we were not in during his previous administration.

1. Trump now knows that impeachment and removal is for all intents and purposes impossible. This wasn’t entirely clear to Trump until after he left office.

2. There are already plans to get rid of a lot of generals and most government employees who are not sufficient loyal to Trump.

3. Trump now knows that he will never face criminal prosecution for decisions he makes while in office.

Add all of those together, there is really nothing left to keep Trump within the law.

He’ll probably play along with the courts for a while but I don’t think he would hesitate to defy the court when necessary. And once he does it once, he’ll do it over and over. SCOTUS knows this so they would likely just rule in Trump’s favor on the less offensive things to maintain the appearance that they still have power.

It is possible that Trump will cross some line that 20 or so Republican senators would find so reprehensible that they would convict him on impeachment especially if Trump is weakened politically because he crashed the economy. But first that would have to be brought up to the floor of the house.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
2. There are already plans to get rid of a lot of generals and most government employees who are not sufficient loyal to Trump.
Click to expand...
Does the president have full power to hire or fire military leaders at will? I've never considered that issue before. There have to be some limits, right? Maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top