Trump Confirms Military Will Assist in Mass Deportations
Trump also confirmed he will declare the border crisis a national emergency.
President-elect Donald Trump confirmed on Truth Social he plans to declare the border crisis a national emergency and use the military to help with mass deportations.
“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin, giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told Fox News.
Cue the freakout! Here come the camps! Here come the home invasions:
Such plans have been rumored for much of Trump’s campaign, raising fears among some critics that a future Trump administration would deploy the military onto American streets.
“They are promising to use the military to do mass raids of American families at a scale that harkens back to some of the worst things our country has done,” Todd Schulte, the president of FWD.us, an immigration advocacy organization, told The Associated Press in October.
Oh, wait. That was Janet Reno.
Alfonso Aguilar, a former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship and the director of Hispanic engagement at the American Principles Project said the country would not become “militarized.”
A person with common sense would know that the military would play a support role:
But Aguliar argued that the military is to play a support role, providing logistics support to the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
“There is a lot of fearmongering from the left and many in the media,” Aguliar said. “These are not going to be sweeps of neighborhoods, these are going to be targeted arrests… initially going after criminals.”
“I would anticipate that the military would participate in a supportive capacity,” he continued. “You’re detaining people, you’re going to need to move these people and provide shelter.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Posse Comitatus might allow them to guard compounds where detainees wait to be booted. It would definitely allow them to provide food. They could also construct the camps. Or bridges across the border to get them the heck out of our country.
Is “national emergency” (outside of calling it what it is, an actual invasion) enough to get around posse comitatus? I don’t think so.
I wouldn’t mind it if they manned the actual border and nabbed people crossing as “invaders”. Even shot some of the real bad guys. It’s that big of a deal to me.
This was an attack on the foundation of the country by the Dems designed to unilaterally convert the country into a one party state. Most of these “migrants” are pawns for the Left which is tragic.
I don’t think PC is going to be an issue because (almost certainly) uniformed service members won’t be involved in the physical arrest of the illegals. Instead, they’ll be used in supporting – but still critical – roles regarding logistics, transportation and securing those aliens already detained pending removal. These are the resources that ICE currently doesn’t have nearly enough of. I suspect more chiefly, the military will be the instrument used for repatriation to countries that are hesitant to accept their own citizens. I’m hoping this is accomplished by LAPES. (IYKYN)
To hell with the parachutes, cram I’m on c-130s, fly low altitude and kick them off down the ramp
I also am worried about this being a “foot in the door” around posse comitatus. “They’ll only be targeting illegals,” you say. Right, like SWAT teams only target drug dealers, not always at the right address. La Migra target only illegals, but they do it with dragnets that stop every vehicle on certain roads up to 100 miles from the border. That’s not a good model for anything. And I shouldn’t need to remind you how many unconstitutional home invasions were committed by police in Massachusetts who were “only looking” for the Marathon bomber.
There were no unconstitutional home invasions in Massachusetts by the police when they were looking for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I live approximately 30 miles north of Boston. All entries were done with the permission of the homeowners.
I know Massachusetts has a reputation of being a very liberal state, which it truly is, but this particular criticism is entirely unwarranted. It is the stuff of urban legends.
It never happened
Period
A dozen people show up at your front door with guns of types the state tells you you cannot have, and asks, “Please, Mister Homeowner, may we eject you and your wife and children from your home and then enter inside ourselves?” Mister Homeowner replies, “Of course, Officer! I feel no chilling effect whatsoever! Who knows, we may be hiding a murderer from you!”
So, if I understand you correctly, instead of blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment, your argument now is coercion.
Aside from hyperbole, got any evidence for that, chief…..
I certainly acknowledge that this could go all Patriot Act very easily. It’s why we need to be willing to stand up, even if it’s Trump who goes the wrong direction.
But, for now, I’m willing to trust Hesgeth to not wander outside Constitutional bounds.
“You’re detaining people, you’re going to need to move these people and provide shelter.”
Some sort of lockdown will be necessary, maybe warehouses can be secured and used.
Guantanamo. Use the military to transport illegals and guard them. Save money for local govts too.
My understanding is that a national emergency gets around Posse Comitatus (but I have not researched it).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW13/20230524/115858/HHRG-118-PW13-Wstate-GoiteinE-20230524.pdf
Maybe Milhouse can weigh in, and help us find ways around legal obstacles?
It does. Posse Comitatus is poorly understood and often misrepresented by most of those who bandy it about.
I think the most common misunderstanding about Posse Comitatus is that many people seem to imagine it’s some sort of constitutional principle, rather than merely a statute like any other, which Congress can amend or repeal at will, and which is overridden by any statute passed after it that contradicts it.
Worse, no one really can be sure whether Posse Comitatus is still even live law.
One school of thought says that overriding language in the Patriot Act nullified it for all practical purposes.
There have also been documented modifications of it, both due process and ad hoc:
Exceptions were enacted in late 2006 to make it easier to use the military to “restore public order and enforce the laws” after another Katrina-style disaster; they were repealed in January 2008.
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from “Insurrection Act” to “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only “to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition” — and such “condition” is not defined or limited.
In 2013, The Pentagon Unilaterally Granted Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances.” (This article should also be interesting to fans of the Marathon Bomber Dragnet.)
Also, as we were discussing, when there’s a national emergency going on, Posse Comitatus is reportedly suspended. But that’s no problem, because there’s ALWAYS a national emergency in progress in the US.
And finally, Posse Comitatus is a law of low effectiveness:
“The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute under which there has apparently never been a prosecution. It has been invoked with varying degrees of success, however, to challenge the jurisdiction of the courts, as a defense in criminal prosecutions for other offenses, as a ground for the suppression of evidence, as the grounds for, or a defense against, civil liability, and as a means to enjoin proposed actions by the military.”
And the law is based on certain principles that are part of the Constitution’s makeup and other laws in support of it. And plenty of people take “constitutional principles” and confuse it with “constitutional.”
There also should be both a website and hot lines to to report illegals. I suspect they will flee to sanctuary cities, costing those cities a lot more money, so much so that they will cooperate with the removal effort 🙂
It’ll be years before they’re ready to round up illegal immigrants who are not already on their lists. Someone who works hard and keeps his nose clean can be reasonably confident that they won’t get around to him for many years, and perhaps not until after the border has been secured and the national sentiment has changed.
The US Army was the border patrol for the first 50 years after passage of PC. The folks who wrote the law didn’t believe protecting the border violated the law.
An EO could call it an invasion. Problem solved. That might have birthright citizenship implications as well.
I agree — but it’s one thing to protect the border, and another to dragnet people who are already inside the border and have been for years.
Anyone not lawfully present in the USA whether that’s been for 6 minutes or six decades should take the easy way out and self deport. Anyone who routinely and unlawfully employed or still employs illegal aliens should go turn themselves in.
I had some cabins in NM when I lived in El Paso and was.stopped at the border patrol checkpoint on every trip. It wasn’t a huge hassle. Coastal States should be aware that they are also ‘border’ States and that a checkpoint can be set up any distance up to 100 miles from a National Boundary… boundaries such as the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.
Exactly. Tell him what would happen if I tried this in any other country
I don’t disagree with anything you gentlemen have said. My point here is that using the Army to repel boarders who are clearly coming from “somewhere else” is eminently defensible… using it to scour inland neighborhoods La-Migra-fashion presents significant dangers to the rights and safety of perfectly legitimate citizens.
And here’s something that most Americans don’t know — that “hundred mile wide immigration enforcement zone” contains two-thirds of all legal US citizens. Inside this magic Fourth-Amendment-free zone, “immigration agents assert the power to board public transportation or set up interior checkpoints and stop, interrogate and search children on their way to school, parents on their way to work, and families going to doctor’s appointments or the grocery store — all done without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.” I bet you thought you had rights — but 2/3 of you were wrong about it.
Henry
I share the concerns about the potential for overreaching. I offered up the example of check points in coastal.areas to demonstrate what is possible in ‘Sanctuary States/Cities’ as form of pressure.
If I was running this show we would concentrate on the mission; get the illegal aliens out. We don’t have to arrest them merely make it very near impossible to remain. 1st priority would removing aliens with additional criminal records. Then those with removal orders and employment sweeps. I would absolutely establish checkpoints along the coastal areas and Canadian border areas.
I believe the long delayed ‘Real ID’ that requires proof of Citizenship to affix the ‘star’ on it goes into effect in March ’25. That’s another good screening tool for sorting out some folks for further investigation. Congress can tie eligibility for all welfare/assistance programs to Citizens. Cutting off funding to NGO, Charities that facilitate entry of illegal aliens is a necessary component.
After Trump is installed in office, watch every kind of Democrat known assemble at the border in resistance. It will make good tv. The border is their lifeblood. Trouble with a story like this is the headline is a heads up to our enemies to establish the dominant narrative. It’s going to be a tough fight..
Deport them too
After thoroughly ridiculing them for never having shown up there when they were in charge of “there.”
One of the things to remember is that Trump is a negotiator and knows show biz as well. This act is kind of like (very like) when Regan was waiting to take office from Jimmy Carter and started floating the possibility of war with Iran to free the hostages. He gave the impression that he not only wanted to launch missles but wanted to push the launch button personally, and with his tongue . Surprise, surprise! The Iranians released the hostages just as he took office.
I believe (hope anyhow) that Trump is looking to disuade more immigrants from coming now, and ideally to encourage many to leave before they are thrown out.
Semi-serious question:
We know that some countries will refuse to take their citizens back…. how much room is there at Quantanemo? Any other place we could use as a holding pen? Certainly anyone kept at such a place would be instantly allowed to leave as soon as they have aplace (outside the U.S.
Mexico let them through to the border. Mexico can have them back and deal with it. If they don’t, shut the border on them. Let their crops rot. Let their people stay on the Mexico side, and push the illegals through the same fence they can through. Tax every dime of remittances to Mexico at 95%.
The nonsense will end quickly.
That’s true for 2/3 ish of the illegal alien population and absolutely can be done. The other 1/3 ish of those illegally present in the USA are here from folks who overstayed the length of Student, Work and Tourist visas.
For the 1/3, so what? They are in the country illegally, They are criminals. They didn’t “overstay” because they forgot.
Agreed but they didn’t come through/from Mexico as did the 2/3, they came via air travel So this large group we can’t reasonably dump onto Mexico b/c Mexico didn’t have anything to do with them. We gotta send them back to either the Nation they flew from direct to the US or to their Nation of origin.
No issues from me on deporting all of them but we must have a plan for the folks who didn’t come through Mexico and understand that it is a much larger group than many realize.
Yahbut, since they were never “refugees,” the optics of their home country refusing to “take them back” would look awful hinky for them. I suspect this will not be a problem.
If they refuse to accept their countrymen back then cut off diplomatic ties and establish an economic embargo for.six months. If they haven’t gotten the message then expand it applying the embargo to any Nation conducting commerce with them for.six months. If that doesn’t work establish a physical blockade and destroy any vessel, aircraft, train or vehicle attempting to enter or exit the Nation. Starve that nation out of existence then send those being deported into now empty Nation.
Now your talking! Mexico is a thoroughly corrupt country. And this nonsense needs to end. We need to quickly remind Mexico of the relative balance of power of 1st world vs. 3rd world!
IMO it won’t be Mexico that’s the issue with this. It will be Nations in Africa, the Middle East and in South America. Applying the expanded economic embargo to their Trading partners; China and EU Nations in particular is where the real pushback will come from the globalists here in the USA. Tell US Corporations they can’t buy from or sell to China, India or the EU. Hell the AG lobby alone will go bat crap crazy, add in the Financial services and entertainment industries to see how much hell would be raised.
I’m all for strong measures, but just keep in mind you’re talking acts of war. Marshal your arguments now for handling that.
I’ve been advocating for invading northern Mexico (on the basis of the cartels and the invasion) and incorporating it into the US. Move ALL the illegal aliens there and tell them to make it a nice place and they can become citizens. Basically “conquer this new frontier and you can have it.”
That’s what gun boats are for…to conduct gun boat diplomacy. If these reluctant Nations won’t take their countrymen back there’s a price to pay for the course they chose to take. We should be totally upfront about our intentions so they have full info about consequences.
Beyond that? Eff them. They don’t get to poke us in the eye without severe repercussions. If they chose to declare war on the USA that’s on them.
Insurrection Act of 1807 allows use of Military for domestic law enforcement. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock using Insurrection Act. Johnson used same Act to send ~12,000 troops , including Marines and 82nd Airborne to D.C. to quell MLK riots. If this Act is applicable for foreign invasion by illegals, I don’t know.
Some of them are going to self deport–and some of them are going to head for sanctuary cities–but those mayors need to be careful The mayor of Chicago recently got an earful from citizens complaining about his $300 million dollar property tax increase which was not supported by a single alderman–one of the major complaints is that Johnson has spent the budget into a deficit to pay for services for illegal immigrants–it’s not going over well with his constituents.
Sanctuary cities don’t protect anyone from ICE. ICE operates just as freely in sanctuary cities as it does anywhere else; it merely does so without any help from the locals, who stand out of the way neither helping nor hindering.
Except, of course, when they carefully shepherd them out the rear door of public buildings when they know ICE is standing at the front door.
They don’t do that.
One state court judge and her court officer, in a non-sanctuary state, did that and were promptly charged.. Unfortunately the Biden DOJ eventually agreed to drop the charges. But this had nothing to do with how sanctuary cities operate. No employee or official of any sanctuary city has ever even been accused of such conduct.
There have been other cases of them being released just a little early so they can evade ICE who was actually going to nab them when they walked out the jailhouse door.
That’s not hindering ICE. It’s the state/city legitimately doing its own job in such a way that it doesn’t help ICE.
Remember that a state’s constitutional right to refuse any assistance to enforcement of a federal law has been upheld for over 200 years. States may not hinder, but they can’t be required to assist. (And according to recent court decisions states can actually be forbidden to assist federal law enforcement if the feds don’t want the help.)
How sanctuary jurisdictions (which is actually the whole country since 2020 given Biden’s refusal to enforce immigration law) actually work in 2024, summarized from testimony given at the trial of Laken Riley’s killer Jose Ibarra by John Hinderaker and posted on Powerline
Jose Ibarra, a citizen of Venezuela and a member of the Tren de Aragua gang, entered the U.S. illegally at El Paso in 2022. Ibarra was apprehended by ICE, but in keeping with Biden Administration policy, he was “paroled and released for further processing.” In other words, he was let go and was on his own inside the U.S.
Ibarra made his way to New York City; I don’t know how. He was put up at taxpayer expense at the Roosevelt Hotel, a formerly rather luxurious midtown hotel where I stayed at least once when in New York on business, but is now devoted solely to illegal aliens.
Ibarra committed a crime in New York and was arrested. It has come out in his murder trial that, rather than being punished or deported, he enjoyed a taxpayer-funded flight from New York to Athens, Georgia, his destination of choice. This, once again, followed Biden Administration policy.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/11/why-trump-won.php
None of which has anything to do with the “sanctuary” movement. “Sanctuary” cities/states refuse to assist federal law enforcement. There are literally no known examples of their breaking the law by hindering such enforcement.
Milhouse, there have certainly been folks who felt empowered by “sanctuary” status to actually hinder federal law enforcement. Yes, their laws are carefully written to not cross that line. But many of them have been actually working against ICE and others.
Define “felt empowered”. Anyone can “feel empowered” by anything to do anything, if they’re ignorant or crazy enough. But as far as I know there has never been a case of an official or employee of such a city or state, acting under that policy, breaking federal law. The only example I know of anything even remotely like that is the MA judge, and MA is not a sanctuary state.