I understand the legal requirement to remove illegal immigrants, but Trump is going about it in a particularly heavy-handed way. All through his campaign he spouted a lot of hysterical hyberbole about illegal criminals and rapists flooding the country. Remember ‘they’re eating the dogs?’ So he’s exploiting a legitimate concern for polemical and political reasons - stirring fear and xenophobia, typical of the kind of demagogue that Trump is.

The current efforts seem driven by a quota system - they have a number in mind and want to meet it. From what I’m reading, ICE are turning up at workplaces where there are likely to be undocumented immigrants employed and basically arresting anyone who appears to be trying to run. Many of those deported are indeed undocumented migrants, but it appears very few are dog-eating rapists. To make matters worse, Trump is deliberately exploiting the effort as a wedge issue to justify further authoritarian steps, such as using the military against civilian demonstrators.

I agree that the Democrat border policies and enforcement thereof were lax, but let’s not forget Biden offered a much stricter regimen, crafted with input by James Lankford, a Republican immigration hawk, which was torpedoed by Trump in 2024, specifically because it might have worked. As always, Trump is only ever interested in political advantage and his own self-interest, which will always trump (no pun intended) any legitimate public interest.

It's not a simple issue.

From a purely legal and sovereign perspective: Yes, appropriate and reasonable in itself. A sovereign nation has laws governing immigration, and enforcement agencies like ICE are tasked with upholding those laws. From this viewpoint, raids are a direct action to enforce immigration laws and control borders, which is considered a legitimate function of a government. (Sending in national guard and marines is inappropriate and unreasonable and possibly illegal - but different discussion).

From an economic and pragmatic perspective: The appropriateness and reasonableness of ICE raids become far more debatable when considering their significant economic impact. Data shows that undocumented immigrants are deeply integrated into the U.S. economy, filling critical labor gaps, paying billions in taxes and fueling consumer demand. Mass deportations, as a result of such raids, would cause severe economic contraction, significant job losses (even for U.S.-born workers), and a substantial reduction in tax revenue. From this viewpoint, the policy is unreasonable.

From a humanitarian/social perspective: The human cost of raids, including the separation of families and the disruption of communities, raises serious ethical and social questions. While enforcing laws, the methods and consequences can have profound social impacts that I personally find inappropriate or unreasonable from a humanitarian standpoint.

Whether ICE raids are "appropriate and reasonable" depends heavily on the lens through which you view the situation. If the primary focus is on legal enforcement and border control at all costs, they might be seen as appropriate. However, if the focus shifts to the broader economic health and social fabric of the nation, their appropriateness and reasonableness become highly questionable due to the demonstrably negative consequences.

I live in the UK, and the people here voted since 2010 for reduced immigration. Unfortunately, the Conservative government they elected did the exact opposite of what they said they would do - dismantling the Borders Agency, and overseeing a fourfold increase in annual immigration between 2010 and 2023.

All the while, they weaponised the immigration issue to win election after election; including the EU Referendum. They used rhetoric very similar to that employed by Donald Trump - targeting the same white working class demographic, with the same messaging, to divide and conquer.

When Donald Trump blackmailed $15bn from Congress (and the military budget) to build a wall, with the longest shutdown of the federal government in US history, and then built 50 miles of wall on a 2,000 mile border - I concluded he was exactly the same as the Conservatives in the UK.

Thinking along those lines, I suspect the current situation has more to do with Donald Trump's background in construction than it has to do with any belated attempt to make good on his election promises. After the LA fires, I imagine, there's a lot of juicy contracts - and a lot of immigrant labour gangs looking to cash in. I suspect Donald Trump is rounding up immigrants so that the Teamsters get the contracts to rebuild LA. That's why all this is going down in California right now; rather than in Texas, or anywhere else.

On the immigration issue itself, I do not think illegal immigration should be tolerated. Not in the UK, Europe or the US either. I think we need to revisit the 1951 Convention on Refugees, and reverse the obligations therein such that the costs of irregular migration accrue to the countries people come from. So, for example, every Mexican in a US prison should be paid for by Mexico; not by the US taxpayer. Mexico would quickly develop a keen interest in repatriating its wayward citizens.

GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — Maybe they really were immigration officers, just as they claimed. Or maybe they were a ragtag vigilante group, arbitrarily snatching brown-looking people off the street.

“It could have been like a band of the Proud Boys or something,” said Linda Shafiroff, recounting the agents who showed up outside her office in masks and tactical gear and refused to show IDs, warrants or even the names of any criminals they were supposedly hunting.

As unrest and military troops overtake Los Angeles, terrifying scenes are also unfolding in smaller communities around the country. They, too, are being invaded by what resembles a secret police force, often indistinguishable from random thugs.

Shafiroff and business partner Sarah Stiner own a boutique home-design and construction firm in Great Barrington, a New England town largely populated by artists, aging hippies and affluent second-home-owners. On May 30, around 11 a.m., six armed agents showed up outside the women’s office. The agents were dressed as though they had parachuted into a war zone, rather than a small town where the crosswalks are painted in rainbows. ….

“These guys had guns hanging all over them,” said Shafiroff, but they otherwise had no conformity to their dress. “None of them had the same letters on the front of their vests. Some of them didn’t even have letters, but it said ‘Police’ across the back. … One had light-colored jeans and sneakers on, and one had on a Red Sox hat.” The agents arrived in unmarked cars, some with out-of-state plates.

The women asked to see IDs or warrants, or even the names of the alleged criminals these agents were there to track down. They refused. One briefly flashed a badge, Stiner recounted, but would not let her inspect it even to see what agency it was for. — WaPo

Surely the heavy handed way that the raids are being performed is meat and drink to Trump's supporters.

I have no issue with a Sovereign State removing illegal aliens. If I went from UK to USA on a tourist visa and tried to overstay and work for a living I would expect to be booted out fairly quickly.

It's difficult to determine what percentage of demonstrators on the street are protesting Donald Trump's mere existence; protesting ICE raids; protesting law enforcement, or protesting all three. Rounding up people--be they vicious gang members, drunks, illegal immigrants, scoff-laws of all sorts--isn't a pretty sight. — BC

Neither Bush nor Obama had this problem, and they deported countless people. That was because they approached the problem in a humane way. They didn't revel in the suffering that deportation causes. Enforcing the law was the point, not the pain that it caused. ICE didn't operate like jackbooted thugs.

With Trump and MAGA, the cruelty is the point. Instead of deportations, we have people being sent to a third world prison. When someone is sent there by mistake (by the Trump Admin's own admission- the lawyer was later punished for admitting it), is he brought back? No. And when the courts intervene, the judges are attacked. The courts should be ignored. Habeas Corpus should be suspended.

Brown immigrants are sent to El Salvadorean jails. White South Africans are welcomed as refugees. An undersecretary at the State Department (Darren Beattie) tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work"

People see the deportations as monstrous and racist and so they protest them and try to shield the deportees. Good for them. I would be particularly upset with American Christians, who have turned their back on Christ's teachings, but when is that ever not the case? American Christians aren't real Christians and haven't been for a long time. Probably never.

I asked perplexity.ai what the difference were in the Obama deportations and those of Trump. Interesting enough to post it:

How is what Trump us doing now different?

Trump’s current deportation approach differs from Obama’s in several key ways:

- **Nationwide Interior Enforcement:** Trump has expanded expedited removal to apply to undocumented immigrants arrested anywhere in the U.S., not just near the border[2][4][6]. This means ICE can rapidly deport people found anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for over two years[2][4][6].

- **Sensitive Locations Targeted:** ICE is now authorized to conduct raids at previously protected places like schools, hospitals, and places of worship—locations where enforcement was generally avoided under Obama[1][6].

- **Mass Detention and Daily Quotas:** The Trump administration has set daily arrest quotas and dramatically increased detention capacity, aiming to deport up to one million people annually—more than triple previous records[6][1].

- **Use of Local Police:** Trump has rapidly expanded agreements allowing local law enforcement to act as immigration officers, increasing the likelihood of arrests during routine policing[6].

- **Legal and Policy Changes:** The administration has invoked laws like the Alien Enemies Act, threatened to use military force, and pursued criminal charges against those aiding undocumented immigrants[1][5].

- **Targeting Broader Groups:** Trump’s policies have targeted not only undocumented immigrants but also activists, legal residents, and even U.S. citizens in some cases, with reports of mistaken detentions and deportations[1][6].

- **Promotion of Self-Deportation:** New tools like the CBP Home app encourage voluntary departure, with added penalties for noncompliance, such as fines and revocation of Social Security numbers[6].

In summary, Trump’s approach is more aggressive, nationwide, and less focused on recent border crossers, with expanded enforcement powers, broader targets, and fewer protections for sensitive locations compared to Obama’s policies[1][2][6].

Citations:
[1] Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
[2] How Trump Has Targeted New Groups for Deportation https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/21/us/trump-immigration-policy.html
[3] Protecting The American People Against Invasion - The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
[4] Ten Harmful Trump Administration Immigration and Refugee Policies https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/20/ten-harmful-trump-administration-immigration-and-refugee-policies
[5] Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration
[6] The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
[7] Inside Donald Trump's Mass-Deportation Operation | TIME https://time.com/7291757/trump-deportation-ice-el-salvador/
[8] From Day One, Trump's Immigration Agenda Has Grown More ... https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/from-day-one-trumps-immigration-agenda-has-grown-more-extreme

It is somewhat alarming to watch a President with clear authoritarian impulses and who previously attempted to overturn the results of a democratic election invoke emergency powers under rarely used statures intended for true insurrection, invasion, war or other threats national security and integrity.

Perhaps even more alarming is the acquiescence of the congress both house and senate in allowing this historical power grab to go unchecked and largely unchallenged. The congress can determine that no such invasion or insurrection is happening and help restore historical checks and balances on an executive which clearly intends to push any checks and boundaries to the limit.

The supreme court (another check and balance) has already assured that the president cannot be charged with a crime for these acts (extensive executive immunity) and also seems willing to allow the executive to violate historic norms.

We have ICE agents wearing masks, without names or numbers, often not in uniform, with no agency identification who refuse to show identification or warrants accosting people (largely on the basis of not being white Europeans) on the streets, at hospitals, at schools and at houses of worship.

We have US Marines (trained for combat not civilian policing) deployed on the streets of L.A. against the wished of both the state government and local policing officials.

No one condones violent attacks on federal agents or police or the wanton destruction of property and looting of stores.

No one objects to detaining, arresting and deporting violent criminals, murderers or rapists. That is not what is being done. Instead deportations quotas are being issued and authorities are under pressure from the executive to meet them using any means possible.

Law abiding immigrants who have married American citizens, have children who are us citizens are being deported, often without due process, to foreign prisons, to countries from which they did not come.
Foreign students and researchers are being arrested and detained for weeks and months merely for political speech. This is a violation of human rights and international law and norms.

Yes, countries need to control their borders and yes countries have a right to know who is in the country but the current government is seriously unrestrained and out of control.

What will happen when an election is cancelled under emergency powers due to a manufactured emergency or invasion. Any subsequent protests could be suppressed using active duty US military forces. This is all a potential precursor and testing of the limits of executive power and the weakness of the constitution in certain areas is being clear. This is a clear and present danger.

The problem is that the US has immigration law and immigration policy and the two aren't uniform. The law is clear, and it does not allow those that make it here in violation of the law to stay once they've been in the US a certain amount of time.

The policy reasons vary as @Benkei notes above, but whatever that policy is ought be embedded in the law. An argument could be made that it would be undemocratic for a chief executive not to execute the law as passed by Congress, particularly under the US Constitution's "faithfully execute" clause (the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed").

So let's abstract this: Under what circumstances do you wish to empower the chief executive to ignore the democratic will and engage in the wholesale refusal to enforce the law?

In the 1800s, the state of Georgia (Go Dawgs!) in the case of Worcester v. Ga. ignored the Supreme Court's ruling that the Cherokee lands within the state were soverign according to treaty and the state had no power to eject them from their lands. They did anyway and President Jackson didn't care. And the trail of tears followed. Any problem there with Jackson's use of discretion?

Properly understood, the argument that the President is afforded the power to evaluate Acts of Congress and decide whether he will honor them is an increase in his power, not a check on it. In fact, it's an elimination of a check. Unless you're willing to allow the President the power to ignore, let's say, civil right legislation under this broad power of selective enforcement as well, you can't take a principled stance on this except to say he should enforce the laws you like and not the ones you don't.

That doesn't really strike me as the rule of law though.

What I'm saying is that if you want the immigrants to be afforded greater rights, change the law. If we took this idea seriously, we would actually legislate when these matters arose, but we don't. We instead hold up signs in the streets and see if we can get someone in charge to buckle under the pressure. Then we shoot an Australian lady in the leg with a rubber bullet for good measure.

Properly understood being in the country illegally is a civil not a criminal offense. There are many laws which are not uniformly enforced. I am not really objecting to enforcing the law as much as the methods and means which are being utilized.
Invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act which is clearly intended for war, true insurrection or rebellion
Ignoring the Posse Comitatus of of 1878 which restricts the use of US military for civilian policing except in times of emergency, invasion, insurrection or war.
There are procedures and methods for removing illegal aliens.
There are historic precedents, norms, customs and values which are being ignored.
I fear this is about more than enforcing law, it is a test of norms, checks and balances and a trial run for remaining in power indefinitely..

This government is ignoring the law. It is invoking these acts designed for true emergencies, insurrections, rebellions and wars precisely to avoid having to afford these people their rights under customary law.

I think it is entirely just and appropriate to remove any undocumented immigrants who aren't facing genuine crisis (i.e are at the start of their illegal tenure and can reasonably be expected to comply with some onerous process of getting citizenship) and, like Obama wanted/did, they go to the back of the line.

Trump's policies are wild(bad, immoral, unfortunate, only semi-helpful to his goal), but the point of them is absolutely spot-on. The riots are an excuse for angry, ideological people to do damage to their own communities while flying flags of countries they refuse to return to.

I haven't had a single reasonable conversation with someone who supports the riots yet. They just lie about it being peaceful and pretend it has something to do with "No one is illegal". Yes they fucking are.

The law is clear, and it does not allow those that make it here in violation of the law to stay once they've been in the US a certain amount of time. — Hanover

It does though. DACA is still in effect. The latest court ruling on it is people already in DACA can renew and are safe from deportation.

That is in pursuit of the normal process of citizenship gaining though, right? It's not going to be indefinite and it doesn't actually grant people anything but a stay.

That is in pursuit of the normal process of citizenship gaining though, right? It's not going to be indefinite and it doesn't actually grant people anything but a stay. — AmadeusD

No, DACA recipients don't have to be pursuing citizenship. You get a S.S. number and eligibility for state id.

Yes, sorry, that was silly wording.

My point was just to show that it is very circumscribed, and there are several limits on it. These people aren't granted the right to stay in the US based on some time spend - they must meet the criteria and continue to do so (aging out, eventually - so, there is no continuing safety in the program, it seems) while renewing actively their status every two years or so. That said, I have nothing against this - I'm just saying there is no way for a person to simply stay in the US for a certain period and be granted the right to continue staying.

I'd also posit this is a privilege, rather than right, but that could be nitpicking here.

They don't age out. They have to renew every two years so we can verify they're keeping their noses clean.

Yes, I've misunderstood the framework.

It seems, though, if you haven't lived it 18 years, you can't get this status, no?
That's an incredibly high barrier and butters no bread for the current issues, I'd think.

From a humanitarian/social perspective: — Benkei

No need to mention the Laken Rileys of the world.

Jesus, Amadeus, just ask chatgpt to explain it to you!

"I'd also posit this is a privilege, rather than right, but that could be nitpicking here."

Yes, it's like getting pulled over for speeding and sweettalking the officer into a warning: I was brought here by my parents, I have no memory of my home country, please have mercy.

I was pushing back against Hanover because there is precedent for letting people here illegally be safe from deportation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court.

No need to mention the Laken Rileys of the world. — BitconnectCarlos

On the other hand, there have been umpteen number of people who's lives have been turned around because they were able to escape from horrific conditions in their home countries and come here. Does that balance out? Maybe not, but now consider that WE, the U.S. are responsible in large part for the horrific conditions in those countries because of our insatiable drug appetite and constant meddling in internal affairs to keep the communist menace at bay. Now does it wash out? You probably still don't think so, but I think we have a debt to repay for those countries we fucked over and letting their people in is a small way to repay it, even if it means the occasional Laken Riley.

I've been using Gemini - it's much much better.
Yeah, but that's not quite the case, is it? It's only people in the US since a certain time. 18 years, it seems. Given that current immigration is the problem (across the last 9 years, anyway) this wont be relevant to much of the discussion.
Your point is taken.

:up:

I haven't had a single reasonable conversation with someone who supports the riots yet. They just lie about it being peaceful and pretend it has something to do with "No one is illegal". Yes they fucking are. — AmadeusD

Well reasonable people don't support riots. They do support free speech, peaceful protest and due legal process. Not being whisked away by masked agents and deported to foreign prisons or countries other than country of origin without any form of legal due process.

That leapfrogs the issue I've put forward, though. Which is that there aren't many people who are reasonable on that side of this (this, of course, being a total generalization but it is based on far more than my experience personally).

The agents are masked for extremely good reason. The optics are noted, nevertheless. As I noted, Trump's policies are wild. I am not defending them. But that doesn't mean the responses is any better. "no one is illegal" and "look how violent I can be" don't work, and never have.

You probably still don't think so, but I think we have a debt to repay for those countries we fucked over and letting their people in is a small way to repay it, even if it means the occasional Laken Riley. — RogueAI

Could we compensate them in other ways besides letting unvetted masses breach our national borders and become our responsibility? Helping them stabilize their own countries sounds like a better solution.

As I see it, a government's responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens.

help me out with what is the law in the USA here. No statutory limitations? No reasonable expectation that if a government doesn't deport you for x number of years that you are "safe"? Under human rights laws (at least in Europe) you acquire an independent right to stay in a county due to having a close connection with it if you have lived there long enough (in NL, especially for younger kids and teens it's about 6 years). If you're married or have US citizen kids I'd expect the right to family life gives you grounds for entry and therefore makes no sense to deport. Does any of it apply or something similar to it?

Could we compensate them in other ways besides letting unvetted masses breach our national borders and become our responsibility? Helping them stabilize their own countries sounds like a better solution.

As I see it, a government's responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

It is, except a past president called us a shining beacon on a hill and we have a proud history of welcoming immigrants and one of our iconic monuments has this inscribed on it:

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Is that just talk to make us feel good, or are those words to live by?

It's very complicated. You could be here seeking asylum, or protected by DACA, or on a student visa, or on a waiver by the Biden Administration which has just been revoked by the Trump Administration, or on a tourist visa or probably a dozen other things. It used to be that we wouldn't split up families and if you were here illegally and had a kid here, who was a U.S. citizen, you were safe. That was called an anchor baby. But the Trump Admin has no qualms about breaking up families.

What about the 14th Amendment and a child's right to be reared by both their parents? Looks very much like a right to family life. Especially where the illegal immigrant parent has social security number and pays taxes, the failure of previous governments to act on deportation has effectively contributed to such an immigrant having a family life in the USA. This person did not hide.

Just read US citizens were effectively deported because both their parents were. That's impossible where I live.

I see the USA has signed several treaties guaranteeing right to family life but never ratified it.

Is that just talk to make us feel good, or are those words to live by? — RogueAI

Unfortunately it is often just talk. The history of immigration in the US is mixed. First it was the English Protestants against the Irish Catholics (try gangs of New York). Then it was the English and Irish against the Western Europeans, followed by those groups against the Eastern Europeans. Not to mention the treatment of Indigenous people, Mexicans in the Southwest present long before it became US territory largely through armed conquest. Try the Asian Exclusion Act or the Immigration laws from the 1920 with quotas by country and race (take a close look at which countries have high and low quotas). Then there are those brought into the country as slaves and their descendants.

There are an estimated 10 million people in the country without legal immigration status, maybe more. The process of finding all those individuals and deporting them will completely disrupt the economy and require methods which disregard legal safeguards and human rights considerations.