Companies that employ undocumented workers at scale have significant political power and deporting them en-masse would shock many industries, so this won’t happen.
The recent ICE shenanigans (which don’t get me wrong - are awful and badly executed) are just performative bullshit to please the voter base. In fact I’d argue they are intentionally executed badly to attract media attention so they can all say they are being tough on immigrants.
The deeper purpose is to create another state-sanctioned security force that is highly associated and politically enabled to deal with ‘undesirables’ outside of normal legal process. Then include whoever is needed under the label ‘undesirable’ — see other comment about a journalist being detained and questioned
Yes - ICE is filling a similar role to what Wagner did in Russia and the brownshirts in Germany. A parallel structure which can be deployed anywhere against anyone. The concentration camp building industry is looking great.
I agree they are deadly serious, but to the parent commenter’s point, why wander the streets grabbing random people when they could go straight to the employers? They would have far more success targeting farms, construction sites, restaurant kitchens, etc.
The answer is the business owners are their constituents. They cannot afford to piss them off. If they lose their support the wheels will fall off this farcical performance.
I grew up in Florida, and I remember the sugar plantation “raids” they used to stage. They were a complete dog and pony show. They would announce them in advance so the plantations could hide most of their undocumented workers. Then they would round up just enough people for the photo op to prove they were being “tough on immigration.”
This is the same thing but on a grander and more dangerous scale.
Not quite. You had a bunch of workers at Tyson Chicken and Hormel Foods... At Tyson, underage and other undocumented workers were complaining about OSHA type stuff... next thing, there's a raid, 900 workers rounded up. Awkward moment as many of them spoke about how Tyson knew they were undocumented, and even handed over the written instructions provided to them on how to fill out paperwork and stay under the radar if they were.
"That is outside the scope of this investigation." Nothing ever happened.
At Hormel, complaining about all sorts of strange diseases and health conditions, possibly from inhaling aerosolized pig brain all day long? Oh, look, another raid.
"Won't someone rid me of these meddlesome workers?"
Just a theory but it seems highly plausible in both these cases that the companies and ICE colluded... stage a big photo op, get rid of problematic undocumented workers and oh, hey, wouldn't you know, no plans to investigate the company?
This is also your friendly reminder that visa overstays are a misdemeanor, but for an employer, assisting or knowingly hiring undocumented workers is a felony. Tough on crime, indeed.
I'm guessing the companies can make things go away by donating to someone with (R) suffixed to their name. Ha, someone's a magician, they can turn a democracy to a banana republic very quickly.
Is it (R) or (M) for MAGA.
I used to joke "Hello to the NSA analyst reading this!" when talking about "sensitive stuff" in private messages, but I guess that needs to be updated to "Hello to the LLM!"
> why wander the streets grabbing random people when they could go straight to the employers?
Because immigration stuff isn't the primary purpose at this time. The primary purpose is to normalize a police state, to invoke feelings of fear in the general population and to build up a bigger infrastructure to do more authoritarian things.
They are targeting those locations... but they need credible reporting of wrongdoing in order to do so. Insider reporting, anonymous tips, etc. They generally don't just randomly show up at an employer without initial reporting of a crime.
For the most part, they've been targeting visa overstays by those who have been charged with and/or convicted of other crimes in the US. Not significantly different than under Obama. It's only that the visibility has been turned up to 11 along with ramped up protests and state/city sanctioned resistance in some locations.
As to the ramp-up in scale.. that's what happens when you let 5x the amount of people legally allowed entry to come into a nation in a relatively short period of time illegally. over 90% of asylum claims are invalid and fraudulent... there is almost no legitimate reason for crossing into the country outside a recognized port of entry.
I say this as someone who feels that immigration should generally be tied to "do you have a source of income and a place to stay?" at its' core... combined with a multiple of minimum wage as an income baseline with hefty employer side taxes to go along with. Arguments against doing so are very similar in my mind to having slavery... it's not okay, not good for the nation. I have similar feelings that "free trade" should only occur when similar quality of life or safety measures are in place. I'm optimistically libertarian minded, but recognize reality.
Just because the grunts are dead serious doesn't mean the initiative is dead serious.
Even then, serious doesn't equal competent. They are still trying to deport Abrego Garcia. Spending millions in legal fees and transport to deport a single man is not pratical in the slightest.
Yes. The cruelty is the point. But that's of course not how they message it to their party.
Turns out cruelty is very expensive to maintain, though. And we certainly do not have the economy to keep accommodating the narrative as real citizens starve and lose jobs. Something's going to break.
Listen I'm sure there are some who are in it only for the messaging.
But you're in denial if you really think certain driven individuals in all three branches of the us government aren't dead ass serious about taking this stuff to misanthropic ends.
We seem to be misaligned on what "serious" is in this context. Perhaps "inefficient" is a better way to phrase it. They are not concenred with effective immigration reform. But they are dead serious about being as bigoted as possible before consequences hit down down the line.
But their message isn't directly saying "spend 1 trillion dollars to be bigoted"
The grunts are surely dead serious, but the bosses? Nah. If they were they'd be sending execs to prison. Anything less is pointless if you truly want to solve the problem.
A MAGA state first and foremost. The hierarchy is "white MAGA > non-white MAGA > white silent > non-white silent > white anti-MAGA > non-white anti-MAGA". Will they eventually come for everyone but the first group? Very likely, but there's always a priority ordering. I'll leave it to the proper historians to decide how similar this is to the state they're using as their main inspiration.
Oh yes and he's not acting alone. The merry band of misanthropes have all but written out their intentions explicitly. And it doesn't appear just to be immigrants they wish this stuff on.
People have been worrying about "ecofascism" well then why aren't you concerned about an administration whose policy is measles outbreaks for the misinformed of their constituency? Whose health minister is a rich environmental lawyer who just so happens to be a huge fan of letting disease rip?
They are serious now, but eventually Pournell’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy comes into play. Those who believe in the organization will take over from those who believe in the mission.
It's also an enormous waste of money, which this admin loves to do. Billions to Israel, $40B to Argentina, $1T+ to bomb boats in the Gulf of Mexico, waste waste waste everywhere and send the bill to the average American, whose economic prospects haven't improved
>to allow to be used inefficiently or become dissipated
So, why are we bailing out Argentina, or bombing the South American gulfs? We can't be efficient if we can't even explain our reasoning. I've heard very little reasoning from the administration.
The best I heard was "we're hitting drug dealers". Even if I believed that, pending hundreds of billions to attack boats with drugs on them sounds horribly inefficient. Drugs are not an immediate threat to people and we have many methods through negotiation to simply limit/stop such imports.
I've heard zero justifications anywhere on the Argentina issue. It seems even many republicans do not like this approach.
> We can't be efficient if we can't even explain our reasoning
You're confusing transparency with efficiency. Military and international politics decisions often need public lies or omissions for political reasons but that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose. If you word it more honestly as "The government can't be efficient if it doesn't explain its reasoning to the public", then it obviously doesn't follow from the definition of waste.
They go hand in hand. Or is it fine that the government is openly lying about how it claims to want to be "America First"?
>that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose.
And that's what I ask. What is the intended purpose? I fail to explain it, and even with my most cynical interpretations I don't see how this is an efficient route.
Transparency would help a lot in evaluating if they aren't being wasteful. But as is, it seems to be a bunch of special interests all clashing with one another in the White House. They don't make sense because there's no unified plan.
You're saying that just because you don't know the purpose, there must be no useful purpose.
> even with my most cynical interpretations
Of course if you're thinking cynically, you won't come up with anything good.
Anyway, the definition is stupid, it says "or become dissipated" which is probably meant to refer to waste energy from a machine but without that context you could consider social welfare spending to be dissipation of money, so the most efficient way for the government to spend would be on huge concentrated projects.
How about spending on things that will have no benefit to the average US citizen, and in fact might just make things worse without solving the stated problem?
How about they spend that fucking money on funding food stamps or any of the other programs affected by the shutdown? If they can illegally move money elsewhere then they can do so for making sure people can eat. I'm going to need to start sending money out of my savings to support my parents because this administration is so inept that they're taking away benefits that our tax dollars have already paid for.
Their reasoning for deploying the Texas National Guard to Chicago was because they claim a rebellion has started. They are consistently provoking citizens and lying about it. The courts have dismissed this due to the ridiculousness of it, but they continue to agitate. I don't think it's all for show, they're seeking a violent response so they can deploy the military.
This. It's like the environmental people going off half cocked screeching about how random petty developments needs more green space in their site plans (while invariably screeching out the other side of their mouth about how the decreased density of stuff makes it less walkable) all while the DuPont or the .gov or some university or whoever has got their engineers and lawyers and whatever to lay out exactly why the thing they're doing is "fine" even if it's worse than whatever the little guys are being prevented from doing.
You can't solve the problem at the "just regulate the employers" level because it invariably turns into a tighter regulatory capture further enriching the incumbents. Any reform will necessarily increase the competitive advantage of the current winners because they are the ones in a position to shape it.
I think it’s more to scare immigrants with pleasing the base being icing on the cake. Stephen Miller is genuinely anti-immigrant. And anecdotally, it is working. Ask any flight attendant on an international route.
They want people to stop coming here, and the threat of being sent to some torture camp in the third world won’t deter a Haitian (whose daily life already meets that description) but it will deter people from less atrocious locations.
As an american, unless you're descendant from native americans, your ancestors are immigrants... I don't think it's worth pointing out. Most anti-immigration americans obviously aren't native americans.
pulling up the ladder behind you isn't a new concept
In my ancestor's defense, they didn't get much choice on emmigrating here. It'd be truly poetic if they tried to forcefully deport me because they can no longer use me as free labor on the fields.
As Vincent Gallo put it recently re: federal debt:
> The USA can tolerate one of these two things. A system of no welfare, no social services, no socialized medicine, food or housing with open borders. OR. No open boarders and highly limited, highly controlled, assimilating immigration policy. We cannot have both. When the USA had unlimited immigration over 100 years ago, we did not have Government supporting immigrants with welfare, medical services, housing, food etc.
I don't agree with Mr. Gallo here - I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.
> I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.
The policy in my red state is to spend public funds to treat unliked immigrants as harshly as possible, deny social welfare to citizens in need and prioritize gov resources for admin loyalists. At least it is now that courts are sufficiently captured.
What does “no open borders” mean here? I’ve seen this term used but I don’t quite get it. Surely it can’t mean completely closing the borders? I.e. literally nobody can enter the country, ever.
Literally no tolerance? I always figured that like everything else, there’s a cost/benefit analysis to be done, and you try and tweak enforcement levels to the point where it gives decent results without costing the earth. No law is enforced with literally no tolerance in practice.
Ive always been ashamed of all the genocidal massacres and forced relocations we did to the native americans but its not in any way accurate to compare establishing a colony to immigration; they came here to create a new society not to live amongst the existing civilizations. The way they did so at the expense of the civilizations already living here is abhorrent and shameful but its also in no way comparable to illegal immigration.
To the extent that it is comparable we would be absolutely justified in regulating immigration because the implication would be that the same thing that we did to the native americans is going to happen to us.
Its also not in any way reasonable to use the sins of the distant ancestor to delegitimize the nation's right to self-determination. Even if i accept your premise that my ancestors are comparable to immigrants i myself am not.
If the argument is that the nation has no rights to control its own borders because that would constitute some sort of "generational hypocrisy" that would also mean we have an obligation to accommodate slavery and genocide because our ancestors committed and benefitted from both of those.
Japan now has Kimi Onoda as Minister in Charge of Foreign Nationals and Immigration, and she's an immigrant herself, but her stance on immigrants is pretty hardline.
These people aren't anti-immigrant because of issues with immigration. They're anti-immigrant because they're hateful.
Japan is truly impressive on taking an anti-immigration stance because they have numbers already that would be the dream of other countries pushing such perspectives. Off the top of my head there's 0.3% immigration.
It's truly saddening that such a stance can still work when it's likely the average citizen will not encounter an immigrant in their day to day life. a million immigrants is not threatening the jobs of 300m Japanese people.
In Japan, the popular sentiment on immigration tends to be grouped together with tourists and temporary foreign workers as a single category: foreigners. This is perhaps understandable but unfortunate, because tourists often are very visible and tend to make a bad impression, as most haven't studied the language or learned the numerous behaviour expectations. Bad experiences with tourists creates hostility towards immigrants, who are few and mostly do work hard to integrate and behave well.
> tourists often are very visible and tend to make a bad impression, as most haven't studied the language or learned the numerous behaviour expectations
Tourists are short-term visitors who are there exclusively to spend their money in Japan and leave it with its citizens. If the Japanese do not want that because the tourists don't come fully prepared for living in Japan, then you should just deny tourist entries to the country. It would be win-win for everyone, because there are plenty of other countries who would gladly take those tourists instead.
I'm sure the Sanseito party would be happy to add your proposal to their platform. I doubt the people who work in the tourism industry are voting for them anyway, and the people who benefit indirectly from tourism probably aren't aware enough of the dependency to care about it.
That is mostly correct; immigrants account for about 3% of a total 123mil population. Your point does stand, but we are quite visible in Japan -- especially in Tokyo.
You are correct that we do not threaten jobs either. A large majority of the foreign population is working low/unskilled jobs. Generally, the native population is not wanting those jobs.
Those undesirable jobs can also be highly visible. Maybe the most frequent place Japanese notice visible minority immigrants is at convenience stores. So maybe it makes the population feel overrepresented. I see RWers post frequently about convenience store workers at least.
Does the 0.3% figure include the massive US military presence? IDK if they count as "immigrants" under the strict definition of the term but most people would consider them immigrants and that might be where a lot of the anti-immigrant sentiment comes from. I would be very surprised if the total amount of immigrants in Japan when including foreign armed services and their family members is a mere 3/10 of a percent.
They get blamed for a lot of crime; idk if that's true or not but it probably is, in part because American culture has less respect for authority, in part because American culture has more respect for individual liberties, and in part because any time you have a large enclave of foreigners (regardless of where they come from or which host nation they're in) they always end up committing more crime than the native population. They also get blamed for driving up prices in the real-estate market (this is definitely true, the US Navy owns 20% of Okinawa).
Blaming "immigrants" instead of specifically blaming the US military is also very convenient for both the US and Japanese government because both governments are largely in-favor of continuing the status quo so it's not surprising that politicians would obfuscate the source of the problem by blaming immigrants as a whole.
Rather than necessarily hateful (but not excluding that), whats happening here seems like brazen discursive manipulation for gain of political power at expense of a minority of the population.
Power in Japanese society is in large part built on calculating and self serving behaviour, without any real integral morals or values.. so politicians are seeing this stuff work overseas, and know they can get away with it too now.
Seems like Onoda's situation is that she was born in the United States to a white American father and a Japanese mother, and the father abandoned the family and the mother moved back to Japan when Onoda was extremely young. So she has almost entirely grown up in Japan but technically had US citizenship because of US birthright citizenship laws until she deliberately gave it up; and of course is visibly half-white. It wouldn't surprise me if part of her personal anti-immigration stance was grounded in anger and sadness about her non-Japanese father abandoning her and her mom.
Please provide evidence for Kimi Onoda being "hateful". She is 100% culturally Japanese, and even speaks English with an accent. This is different from immigrants who don't know the basic cultural norms of a country and have integration issues.
She had American citizenship until recently. She's overcompensating by larping as a native when she isn't. She was intentionally picked to be a token foreigner to lead the anti-immigration policy of the new administration, just like the US's regime can say "You can't call us far right! That Stephen Miller guy's Jewish!" They love their token minorities since it's an easy counterpoint that they think proves they're angels with good intentions, and unfortunately, half of any given country will completely believe a government that uses minorities for that purpose.
So what's your point? Should minorities be excluded from government? Are individual members of minority groups not entitled to their own opinions? And are "far right" jews really that big of an anomaly?
There is definitely a phenomenon of people sometimes supporting candidates on the basis that their ethnicity won't be used to criticize their policies but they're addressing a complaint that would be made otherwise. It also denies the agency of minorities by requiring them to be monolithic entities wherein all members agree with whatever you think their opinions should be. Would you really be satisfied if the entire trump administration was white Christian males over the age of 40?
One of the criticisms of the pro-life side of the abortion debate has always been that men are over-represented in the US federal government yet they're able to regulate an issue in which they are not directly effected. I don't know if you agree with this specific criticism or not but a lot of people do and I don't think it's fair to then complain about "tokenism" when somebody like Amy Coney Barrett who is immune to this argument gets appointed.
Bad people aren't limited to one race or anything. But far end politicians love propping up a minority on TV because then they can have an excuse whenever they're compared to historically bad political movements.
You're the only one bringing up white Christian males here, which kind of proves my point. You seem to think that for some reason I care if a politician is white or Christian. Extremist Islamic parties love propping up Christian minorities on TV and saying they'll defend them (they won't). Right wing western parties really, really love propping up a Jewish party member because they can say "we're not Nazis!!! All Nazis hated Jews and we love them!!!" Because the average person really thinks nazism was really only about killing Jewish people, when the reality was they only got around to that after several years of other awful stuff.
The LDP is propping up their 100% foreign born, foreign citizenship politician so they can say "see? We can't be anti-foreigner because the lady controlling this is a foreigner." The optics are transparent and it's even what they're astroturfing their message on social media as. Japanese politics are all about image. They don't pick a foreigner who illegally held dual citizenship to head anti-foreigner policies by accident.
We had Dilan Yeşilgöz here in NL, minister of justice and leader of the liberal party VVD (right wing). She's an immigrant, born in Ankara, of Kurdish ancestry. She lied about immigrant subsequent travelers (which she is herself!) being a huge issue, and the government fell because of this issue. Turns out it is 400 people per year. I don't know what it is. Self-hate? Rules for thee, not for me?
ICE is not just performative bullshit. It's a display of authoritarian power and yet another branch of our government mobilized against the US people. As this article highlights, it's an excuse for surveillance. Of citizens, mind you.
That performance may backfire, since some of the big supporters are agriculture businesses that rely on illegal immigrants to survive. Mass deportations of the type ICE seems to want will put a lot of those businesses out of business. I'm sure someone up in Washington thinks that poor Americans will step in to fill the gaps, but when it's been tried before those assumptions failed, badly.
I've seen some conspiracy theories that RFK, Jr, et al, want to start labor camps for autistic kids and just about anyone else his bunch can get tagged as defective or deficient or whatever, but I don't think that's going to work out like someone hopes it will.
A Reuters poll on the White House demolitions had a 63% approval for one question and a 40% approval rating for another question - from Republican voters.
As long as there exists a content economy on the right that does’t have to pay their dues to reality, you will not stop a political machine which is based upon fantasy.
The only thing that will cut through the noise is a recession, because that cannot be spun. Even then - that would just be a speed bump; eventually the recession will pass.
>when it's been tried before those assumptions failed, badly.
Turns out Americans don't want to move out to rural areas to be paid minimum wage to do hard farm labor. Who knew?
That's the only real upside to this gig economy. Their competition isn't just flipping burgers, but anyone who has a car that can sign up to an app to make some quick cash.
I think you'll find that ICE goes to cities, not to the tiny farm towns where most of the field workers stay at. Farmers don't want ICE screwing up harvests, and the admin wants a more visual approach that comes with focusing on cities like LA and Chicago, not places like Seville CA.
Not to forget they can use the performative bullshit to lay grounds for a paramilitary GeStaPo. ICE as it is already attracts all the wrong character types.
I’ve seen Trumps buddy’s (the inhuman lawnmower) big company appear on jobs.now posting for general midlevel dev positions. These people are liars and it’s so painfully obvious.
I’ve seen more people realize this since his Trump started beefing with Massie, but they still glaze him so hard as to not offend, that it’s basically meaningless.
The recent ICE shenanigans (which don’t get me wrong - are awful and badly executed) are just performative bullshit to please the voter base. In fact I’d argue they are intentionally executed badly to attract media attention so they can all say they are being tough on immigrants.