Large Majority Of Americans Support Mass Deportation Of ALL Illegal Aliens
It’s Deja Vu all over again as to fury over illegal immigrant crime: In 2015, it was Kate Steinle; in 2024, it is Laken Riley.
I experienced something of a time warp preparing this post. I recalled that in early July 2015, about a month after Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy, I wrote at National Review how Trump and Trump alone had identified mass illegal immigration and related crime as the key election issue.
It’s kind of strange to read it now, because the issue of illegal immigration and crime is as true in 2024 as it was in 2015, Trump’s Lesson: Voters Are Furious about Illegal Immigration:
Donald Trump has rocketed to the top, or near the top, of the Republican-primary field by focusing on illegal immigration and border security….
But for now, Trump is in the driver’s seat, and his vehicle is the lawlessness reflected in our failure to control illegal immigration in general, and violent illegal-immigrant criminals and gangs in particular.
Trump’s announcement speech caused an uproar because of these sentences:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
…. But something happened on the way to the denunciations and purges.
Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco, a sanctuary city…. The murder of Steinle struck a chord like nothing else, because it came to symbolize the vulnerability Americans feel about the failure of government to protect us from people who shouldn’t be here in the first place….
One section in Trump’s Phoenix speech jumped out at me as capturing especially well what is happening on the ground:
When I started . . . I didn’t think the immigration thing would take on a life like it has. I made some very tough statements about people flowing through, because that’s one of the things, to make our country great again, we have to create borders, otherwise we don’t have a country [italics added].
…. The sense that we are losing control of our own country, by the design of politicians, is creating a fury — and an opening for a politician willing to recognize that the problem poses an existential threat to our own freedoms.
If Republicans consider Trump a danger to the Republican party in the 2016 general election, then they should start by feeling the people’s pain over illegal immigration, standing with the victims, and looking in the mirror — not at Donald Trump.
Everything I said in July 2015 applies with even more force after four years of Biden/Harris open borders and crimes by illegal aliens hitting almost every part of the country. In 2015, it was Kate Steinle; in 2024, it is Laken Riley.
Immigration was just behind the economy in importance to 2024 voters:
About six-in-ten voters (61%) today say immigration is very important to their vote – a 9 percentage point increase from the 2020 presidential election and 13 points higher than during the 2022 congressional elections.
Immigration is now a much more important issue for Republican voters in particular: 82% of Trump supporters say it is very important to their vote in the 2024 election, up 21 points from 2020.
Trump promised during the 2024 campaign the largest mass deportation effort in history.
And according to a just-released CBS News/YouGov Poll, Americans overwhelmingly support the mass deportation effort:
“As was the case with voters throughout the campaign, most Americans would, in principle, approve of a new mass deportation program.
If the Trump administration does start a mass deportation program, most of the public would have it carried out by law enforcement or current immigration agencies — most would not have the U.S. military do it.”
The demographic and party breakdown shows that even 27 percent of Democrats and almost half of Hispanics support mass deportation.
Trump has a mandate for mass deportation, but Democrats certainly will try to stand in the way of immigration enforcement.
Those terms are acceptable. https://t.co/mQ39C8btPc
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) November 24, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
We’re gunna take our country back
Get the F out of the way
Border Czar
starting day one ….
round em up and ship em out ..
put the military on the boarder
with shoot to kill an invaders
because that is what it is … invasion.
Let’s not skip over the employers and others who facilitate the illegal alien population. Plenty of consequences should come their way as well. When its made near impossible to exist in the USA for an illegal alien b/c every interaction at every agency at all levels of govt or even getting the power turned on requires real ID then folks will self deport. When employers who routinely hire illegal aliens, exploiting them and paying no or lesser wages/benefits and unemployment tax/SSA tax go unpaid …their assets should be seized/civil asset forfeiture until the criminal conspiracy investigation and prosecution is complete… do that and far fewer employers will take a risk.
Good luck. Tyson, Purdue, and Smithfield own a lot of congressmen.
We also need to end the Big Meat monopoly. Then they’ll have less pull.
They are recommending the Paleo diet today. Everybody should eat meat like a cave man. Be healthy like our ancestors. Vegan out. Carnivore in.
There are networks of shady “staffing agencies” that move them around the country and find them employment. Some of the agencies we’ve come across are only a post office lice box and cell phone number, some come back to private residences. Trying to id an illegal who is a suspect is like a shell game.
No worries. Seize the property and bank accounts in civil asset forfeiture. Tough to mount a defense with no access to cash and no assets to sell/mortgage.
The first step should be a highly visible campaign to remove criminal illegals, especially the cartels. Ruthlessly. And prosecute any who took the plata. Vigorously and with extreme prejudice. Now, the rest of joe average illegal? Rounding them up with be like herding cats, with the media hounding with endless pictures of crying little kids. Go for the choke points.
So, do not chase them specifically, rather follow the line you’ve suggested. Everyone knows who the big illegal alien employers are in each city. Raid the top three or so in each city/state.
Arrest and prosecute the entire management structure, from line supervisor to CEO/Board of Directors. Devastating fines, years in prison and bans from running anything bigger than a hotdog stand.
Void any licenses and confiscate the entirety of the business as fruit of an illegal operation.
Sell all assets, use the fines to support citizens injured by the illegals present.
Make hiring an illegal so painful and consequential that it is unthinkable. Make e-verify robust and accurate.
IANAL, but USCode18 has provisions for those who aid illegals to be prosecuted for crimes the illegals they aided commit. SS 1982? Something like that. Include State officials. Include city officials. Include Mayors and Governors. Private citizens, NGO’s and Churches.
Ban all Federal assistance of any kind aside from a ticket home. Prosecute for harboring, any who assist them in anyway. Withhold federal monies from States that refuse to comply.
Again, do not prosecute illegals who only crossed the border. Rather offer aid for those seeking to return home where they can work and make money to buy food. Once they report and enter federal custody, treat them well, publicly and very visibly. Take care of them, but return them with little delay. Sugar, vinegar, etc.
If you cant eat, not much choice but to go home.
Agreed, prioritize criminals and those with existing removal orders. Then work on the visa over stays to ensure removal orders are issued. Employers are low hanging fruit in ‘sanctuary’ Cities/States. Then we need a program to get ICE detainer requests upgraded to federal bench warrant. The public charge rule is a good tool but needs statutory reform to remove discretion.
IMO the whining about deportations as a PR issue should be neutered by allowing any US Citizen to agree to become a sponsor:
1. Sponsor mist Post $50K surety bond
2. Sponsor must House the alien in the Sponsor’s primary residence.
3. Sponsor accepts financial liability to include repayment of govt services; per pupil cost of school, medical care and imprisonment if required.
Then we find out exactly who is committed to open borders. Every time some whiny woke lefty goes on TV to cry they get asked why they ain’t sponsoring anyone in their home. Same for AOC and other members of Congress; your own constituents won’t step up and house, feed, clothe provide all the necessities of modern life so why should ‘taxpayers’?
Correction:
They are “illegal aliens” or “illegal migrants”. They are not “immigrants”. They cannot be “immigrants” because they have no right to stay here. They can be thrown out at any time – and should be.
This was directed at the National Review piece in the post.
That is just wrong. To immigrate means to enter a country with the intent of remaining. It makes no difference whether one does so legally or illegally; the act is the same. And an immigrant is simply one who has immigrated, regardless of the circumstances. To say that someone who immigrated illegally is not an immigrant is just as silly as to say that someone who drives illegally is not a driver.
Let me explain this SLOWLY for you …
If you do NOT have the right to remain … then you cannot plan on remaining.
Illegal aliens CANNOT be “immigrants”.
But, then, you probably have the same sort of attitude about squatters and how they are “tenants” or even “owners” of the properties they steal and have rights to the properties. People like you make this world hell for decent people.
Of course you can. People do it all the time, and you know it.
Next you’ll be saying that if you don’t have the right to take someone’s property then you can’t plan on keeping it. And yet the definition of larceny is precisely that. Taking someone’s property, without the right to do so, and with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of its use. So obviously it is possible to have the intent to do something you have no right to do.
You can intend and plan on being the King of America. There is even the slight possibility that you could pull it off. By your reasoning, that means that you should be addressed as the illegal King of America. But, of course that is inane.
You are a retard. A legal retard.
You are just a liar.
If someone plans to make himself king of America, that is a plan. It is not an achievement. If he actually pulls it off, if he actually does take the country over, then he will be a king. An illegitimate king, but still a king.
Larceny does not require actually keeping the property taken. It merely requires a plan to keep it. If you take something with the intention of keeping it, and then the police catch you and take it away, you have still committed larceny and can be charged with it, and it is not a defense to say that you didn’t actually keep it since you no longer have it.
Likewise immigration requires merely entering a country with the intent of remaining there permanently. That intent might not be fulfilled. You might be caught and deported, or you might change your mind and leave voluntarily. Neither circumstance changes the fact that you entered with the intent of remaining, and therefore you immigrated. And that makes you an immigrant. If you planned to remain but had no legal right to do so, then it makes you an illegal immigrant.
Immigrants ask for permission first, it’s called a Visa. Anyone else who comes in without permission is a criminal illegal alien.
Wrong. Some immigrants ask for permission first. Those are the ones who immigrate legally. Many other immigrants don’t ask for permission first (or ask but are denied), but do it anyway. Those are illegal immigrants.
That would seem to make them the opposite of ‘subject to US law’ b/c they chose to deliberately evade it in entering illegally. That raises intriguing 14th amendment questions about the citizenship status of their children.
Even under Wong, his Parents were lawfully present in the US at the time of his birth.
No, it doesn’t. Every criminal chooses to deliberately evade the law by violating it. That’s what makes him a criminal. It doesn’t change the fact that he is subject to the law.
On the contrary, if criminals were not subject to the law then how could they be arrested, tried, or punished? Imagine if every criminal could raise the defense that their deliberately evading the law makes them not subject to it, and therefore should be let free!
Illegal immigrants are very much subject to US law, which is why when they’re caught they can be tried for having broken it.
(We don’t usually do that, we just chuck them out, but we can prosecute them first, imprison them, and deport them only after they’ve served their sentence. Usually that’s not worth the money it costs.)
8 US Code, §1324 describes them as “aliens,” not “immigrants.” Immigrant implies following a lawful process.
Exactly.
No, it does not, any more than driving implies following a lawful process. Immigrating is not a legal term; it’s an ordinary verb describing a thing that people do, like walking, talking, jumping, etc. Anyone who walks is a walker, anyone who jumps is a jumper, and anyone who immigrates is an immigrant, whether or not he has any right to do so.
Oh, and legal immigrants are aliens too. Being an alien has no more to do with your legal status than being an immigrant does.
And all of the NGOs and all of the government officials who have helped orchestrate this invasion need to be held account for their serious and heinous crimes, not least of which is TREASON.
ALL OF THEM.
https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CBS-YouGov-Mass-Deportation-Nov-2024-2.png
I cannot remember the last time CBS produced anything worthwhile.
The answer is all of the above plus private citizens, maybe a bounty, or perhaps volunteers.
Removing illegals is a huge job, allowing the to stay at all, with all the costs they represent, is bankrupting us.
A check of Colorado law regarding oaths of office indicate the mayor swears to affirm support of “the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State of Colorado…”.
No mention of upholding or supporting federal law. So, it looks as though the gov can thumb his nose at the feds and suffer no consequences…unless he, himself, violates federal law. Perhaps, for example, aiding and abetting the violation of federal immigration laws?
Hmmmm….
The oath is irrelevant; violating an oath is not a crime. However obstructing federal law enforcement is. And so is aiding a fugitive. So he’s free to shoot his mouth off as much as he likes, but if he acts as he says he will then he will be arrested and prosecuted. He knows that, which is why I don’t believe he has any intention of doing so.
Also, as far as the oath is concerned, “support” doesn’t mean to give moral support. It means abide by. And part of the US constitution is the supremacy clause that says valid federal laws are the supreme law of the land. So deliberately committing federal crimes does violate the oath, not that that means anything.
Violating an oath is certainly a crime in many instances (say perjury) but in all cases it invalidates whatever that oath was taken to insure. If the oath is part of your office then violating it renders your position in that office null and void. That is the point and function of the oath. Violating the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance obviates one’s naturalization, for a simple example.
No, violating an oath is never a crime. It is certainly not the crime of perjury.
And no, violating an oath of office does not do anything to your position.
And violating the oath one took at naturalization does not cancel the naturalization. Once naturalization is validly obtained, nothing can ever cancel it, including violating the oath that was required to obtain it.
Since you are intellectually limited I emboldened the important parts for you:
You don’t even bother trying to make your lies passably believable.
You are not just intellectually limited, you are intellectually and in every other way dishonest.
The crime of perjury of course requires that one have first sworn to tell the truth. Someone who has not so sworn generally has no obligation to do so, so lying can’t be perjury. But the fact of violating an oath is not perjury. The oath is merely an element of the crime; it is not the crime itself. The crime itself is the lies told.
Thus this has no relevance to any other context. It is never a crime to violate an oath. It is certainly not a crime to violate an oath of office.
It is a violation of federal immigration law to harbor illegal aliens.
It is indeed,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
One interesting part – liability for the harborer
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
I’m not sure I believe in those numbers. Over 60% of voters say immigration is very important to them but Trump didn’t get that much of the vote. 70% of Democrats do not support mass deportation but democratic mayors and governors aren’t getting that percentage of vote either. If 60% of the people in the US support mass deportation and an even higher percentage support deportation itself then why do the same people who support open borders keep getting elected?
Abortion. While the insane amount of money spent by pro-abortion PACs leading into the election didn’t get Harris elected, it did get abortion moved from the 6th most important issue (where it was last summer) to the 3rd most important issue (behind the economy and ‘Democracy), according to exit polls….where it just edged out ‘immigration.’ I suspect there are a lot of women who didn’t really like Harris’ weak immigration position but didn’t care because of abortion.
Let’s add insult to injury: revive a fine old name from the past. I thinking the Eisenhower years. Let’s call this Operation Wetback.
Questions about the deportation process, please.
What if the destination country declines to accept the deportee?
Are they then sent back to USA? Then what? Who pays for the return (whether air or bus or foot)? Must the USA accept them back (i.e. start all over)? Would these people become “countryless”?
Can the USA ‘force’ various countries to accept their [former] inhabitants?
Having fled their [former] nation, they might not be welcomed back. Is that grounds for asylum in USA? [circular logic but perhaps legal?]
Are the answers in legal and/or in diplomatic channels?
As they say when the bar closes, “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here”.
Well they remain citizens of the country they came from so they aren’t “country less”….odd that just leaving a country would cause you to lose citizenship…it doesn’t… and as for asylum… they need to go back to first/closest country from where they fled. That means 90 percent or more need to go. No economic refugees either and fleeing crime is also not a valid reason.
Mexico in most cases allowed them unfettered access through their southern border and passage to the north. Send them to Mexico. They had them last, they let them pass, they can deal with it.
Your points are well taken; however, I am asking about the practical matters. Normally, when you cross a border, you go through Immigration/Passport Control. You are either admitted, or turned around. If you came from Country A to Country B, then B refuses entry = you go back to Country A, You are stuck if A also refuses return entry. It happens.
If the USA puts anyone on a plane or bus or bridge to anywhere – and that ‘anywhere’ refuses admission, then what? A bar can toss folks on the street at closing time, where the police can deal with it. At a border, no street exists.
Regardless of the magnitude: 1 or a million or millions — as a legal matter, how can this be done? Can nations be forced to take refugees (that could lock up US courts for decades)?
IMHO opinion, the USA is stuck. They were allowed in, so they can’t be sent back UNLESS the nation wants them back. Yes?
Close the border, then deal with the present problem (dreamers, paths to citizenship, whatever). Without expanding into the larger problem of jobs and asylum law and so forth – my question is limited to legally/practically: how can anyone be deported to any nation unless that nation is cooperating? I suppose this begs the question: will the usual & customary source nations cooperate with Trump??? If that answer is ‘yes’, then my question is moot.
Step 1: Verify Citizenship of all crimes / arrests
Step 2: Federal law notifying and holding illegals
Step 3; Deport.
Crime goes down like door flying off a Boeing airplane.
Not clear what you mean by Step 2. If you mean a law requiring states and cities to notify ICE of aliens arrested, and to hold them for ICE to collect, that would be unconstitutional.
Nor can states be coerced into compliance by cutting their existing funding beyond what they can afford. But they can be “persuaded” by smaller cuts, that still leave them with a choice, so long as those cuts are made explicitly by Congress.
If you are referring to the holding time w/out a charge- then great – CHARGE them with violating immigration law. It’s not called “illegal” immigration for nothing.
this cat and mouse game was happening all over the place where ICE would find out and the locals would deliberately hustle them back out the door w/out charges before they could get picked up.
Much like teachers and doctors can get burned for not obeying mandatory holding requirements, there’s no reason we can’t do that here.
No, it was not happening all over the place. It happened one time, in a jurisdiction that is not a “sanctuary”, and the people involved were arrested and prosecuted. (The Biden administration then gave them an incredibly lenient deal, but that’s not relevant to this discussion.)
Start with cooperative states to round up illegals. Let those who want to hide go to sanctuary cities and states. Similar to what’s happening in Springfield OH. Illegals leaving to go to NY and Chicago.
Let them overwhelm sanctuary cities and states. Cut off federal law enforcement and education money. Make them suffer to the point where more Republicans move to red states and the remaining inhabitants are taxed to the gills and suffer from the crime.
Don’t forget the latch key babies born to illegals. If the child is 7 years old both parents are not naturalized they all get the boot.
The child is a US citizen, and can’t be forcibly deported. However there’s no reason the parents can’t choose to take the child with them, and that would be the normal and expected thing for them to do. When the child is older it can come back if it likes. Or they could find some relative in the USA to look after the child. At any rate they are not entitled to remain merely because they are the parents of a US citizen.
That one would require a constitutional amendment.
I’m not disagreeing, but those are the rules.
That isn’t necessarily the case and hasn’t been adjudicated despite the folk wisdom. In fact the case most often cited is Wong under which SCOTUS ruled Mr Wong was entitled to 14th amendment protection as a US Citizen precisely b/c both his Parents were present in the USA with a lawful status at the time of his birth which made HIM a US Citizen.
SCOTUS has NEVER directly ruled/held that someone automatically becomes a US Citizen solely due to birth in the USA aka ‘birthright’ Citizenship from illegal alien parents.. Every case has had either one or both Parents that were already US Citizens or were LAWFULLY present in the USA/US Territory at time of birth.
That Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally is not relevant to the finding in his case, therefore that part is dicta. The relevant part of the decision is that the fourteenth amendment means exactly what it says. Anyone born in the USA and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e. has a duty to obey its laws and can be arrested if he doesn’t) is automatically a US citizen. The only way to be born in the USA and not be born a citizen is if you’re immune from US law, because your parents are either diplomats or part of an invading army.
Invading soldiers are not subject to US civilian law, they’re subject to military law. Which is why prisoners of war can be held, even though they haven’t committed any crime. Invading is not itself a crime. Making war on the USA (if you’re not a US citizen) is not a crime. When we shoot enemy soldiers it’s not because they’ve committed a crime. That’s why they’re not entitled to due process, or to habeas corpus. So their children born during the invasion are not US citizens. But that means only uniformed soldiers in a recognized foreign army that is at war with the USA.
It would be funny if some of the most obnoxious Dems were accidently deported.
I’m not going to argue semantics. They are illegal aliens and need to be ejected from this country. The rate of criminality, heinous sexual assaults, vehicle crashes you name it, is endemic. Each crime should never have happened. Also, the thought that the authors of the 14th Amendment would have thought that the offspring of illegal aliens would be citizens is absurd. They weren’t committing national suicide. That misreading of “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” will be litigated.
Agreed. One who has entered the country illegally cannot simply have a child here and claim the child is a citizen any more than a person who has broken into a home and subsequently gave birth can claim that the child is part of the homeowner’s family.
The fourteenth amendment says you’re wrong.
You are completely wrong. It will not be litigated, because there is nothing to litigate. If an illegal alien is not subject to US jurisdiction then he can commit all the crimes he likes and we can’t touch him. Tell Laken Riley’s murderer that he’s not subject to US jurisdiction, and therefore can’t be in prison!
The authors and ratifiers of the 14th amendment didn’t have illegal immigrants in mind, simply because there was no such thing at the time. They were unfamiliar with the concept that someone could be here illegally. But had they known that there would one day be such things as illegal aliens they would absolutely have affirmed their intent that such people’s children born here are citizens. Just as they explicitly stated that the children of gypsies and other such “social undesirable” foreigners were included as citizens.
I hope the Trump administration will truly Make Deportations Great Again!
I would love to see an automated human cannon system, vacuum formed cartridges to hold an illegal for return, and a system which slightly alters trajectory so landings are spread out. Seeing such deportations would encourage other illegals to leave on their own.
Leave a Comment