Trump Signals a Crackdown on Legal and Illegal Immigration
The president plans to suspend refugee resettlement and declare a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.

As President Donald Trump delivered his inaugural address on Monday, he outlined the series of executive orders he planned to sign that day to "begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense." First on that list were several immigration- and border-related measures.
"First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border," Trump said. "We will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came." Other moves will include reinstating the "Remain in Mexico" policy, sending troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, and "eliminat[ing] the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks" in the U.S. by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
A fact sheet released by the Trump White House Monday afternoon indicated that the president's crackdown would target legal and illegal immigrants alike.
Trump plans to enhance the "vetting and screening of aliens." Though the White House fact sheet did not specify what that would involve, Trump has previously suggested some broad and fraught applications. On the campaign trail, he promised to implement "strong ideological screening of all immigrants" to keep out "dangerous lunatics, haters, bigots, and maniacs." He would also "keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists, and socialists out of America," he said in a 2023 speech.
The president plans to suspend refugee resettlement, reportedly for at least four months. For over 40 years, the U.S. has resettled heavily vetted people who have faced or who fear persecution based on certain criteria. The president plays a powerful role in shaping the number of annual refugee admissions. (Trump set a lower and lower ceiling each year of his first term.) Suspending the program will leave displaced and vulnerable people at risk of persecution. Among others, that includes thousands of Afghan nationals who assisted the U.S. during its war in Afghanistan and are still awaiting relocation.
The CBP One app, which since January 2023 has allowed migrants to schedule screening appointments with an officer at a port of entry, went offline today. "Approximately 270,000 migrants are estimated to be waiting on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to get an appointment to enter the U.S.," reported CBS News yesterday, citing government figures. The CBP One app had its problems—it was glitchy and demand far outpaced the number of available appointments—but eliminating a program that attempted to create a more traceable, predictable migration pathway could drive sufficiently desperate migrants to attempt illegal crossings instead.
Trump set a sky-high expectation for managing border crossings during his inaugural address, claiming that "all illegal entry will immediately be halted." Even his most forceful border-focused actions—such as building the border wall, "ending asylum for illegal border crossers," and sending soldiers to the southern border—can only do so much toward that goal if legal pathways are unworkable for hopeful migrants. And punitive border policies come with human costs. During the first Trump administration's implementation of Remain in Mexico, migrants forced to await court dates south of the border reported numerous instances of rape, kidnapping, and torture.
It comes as no surprise that immigration and the border are top of mind for the newly inaugurated Trump, who made a mass deportation operation and ending birthright citizenship centerpieces of his campaign. As the second Trump administration's immigration and border policies take shape, it's clear that the crackdown to come will sweep up legal and illegal immigrants alike.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cope and seethe assholes. If you want to sponsor, feed and house a "refugee" with your own money/resources, feel free to do so. Don't force me to pay for it, and you can do whatever you want.
I see no evidence on the “Legal” assertion
The President is suspending refugee resettlement, after communities were forced to house large and unsustainable populations of migrants, straining community safety and resources.
The refugees came here *legally*.
Since most don't actually meet the criteria for refugees, no, no they aren't. They were labeled refugees to get around the process.
They are entitled, by law, to request asylum and to have their asylum claims adjudicated via the usual course of due process. Think of it like filing a lawsuit in court. Everyone is entitled to file (virtually) any legal case that they wish in court. Even if the petitioner loses the court case, it doesn't make the initial filing of the lawsuit wrong or invalid or illegal.
But they are not entitled to come into the country to file the request or to remain in the country. Ergo, they don't have a legal right to be here.
But they are not entitled to come into the country to file the request
Yes they are. They are permitted to file their request either at a border crossing (which most do), or if they are already inside the country.
or to remain in the country.
Yes they are. Otherwise it constitutes "refoulment".
Nope. Try again.
If you're a Honduran asylum applicant who enters by way of our border with Mexico, "refoulment" would be dropping you in Honduras.
Dropping you back in Mexico would not be "refoulment".
Asylum seekers, under international law, are supposed to stay in the first country that gives them asylum.
American laws supersede your gay international laws.
I was telling jeff that he's wrong you ninny.
I thought you weren’t around anymore.
I said the same thing to your your mom last night.
You don’t even know how jokes work. Sad.
When we first broke sarc he tossed out a lot of your mama responses in anger.
He doesn’t know how to do much of anything right. Although he did properly correct Pedo Jeffy.
Yes they are, but tellingly they tend not to apply for asylum in Mexico.
Trump made them wait in Mexico, and Biden reversed it. Trump had the better policy.
It was also illegal under international law. But SCOTUS approved it so Trump did it anyway. No chance he is going to let himself be bound by international anything.
Making the asylum applicants wait in Mexico means you create giant refugee camps just south of the border.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8796864/
If they're that desperate then they should take the first offer.
That's like unemployed people refusing a job because it's not good enough. You'll never sell that one to me.
Well, I think stories like the above demonstrate that Mexico isn't a very safe country for them. I am not even sure that Mexico has a functioning asylum system.
We have signed no international agreement that allows foreigners to forum shop asylum claims to the US.
Yep.
@jeff: by that logic, Trump wasn’t wrong and racist to call those countries shitholes and failed states or to declare the cartels terrorist organizations…
Asylum seekers, under international law, are supposed to stay in the first [safe] country [they arrive in]
that gives them asylum.According to US law, the "safe third country" rule only applies to countries with which the US has an explicit agreement on the matter. And the only country which does, is Canada.
Nope. Try again.
You yourself have admitted that most don’t qualify.
There is 0 reason they should be moved from a port of entry to the interior of the country while we decide that.
Exactly. It's like labeling Jeffy as "skinny" when his BMI is through the roof.
Nope. Illegals. That the Biden administration was breaking the law doesn’t make them any more legal. This has been explained to you multiple times already, you lying shitweasel.
chemjeff, they are going home now, legal or not.
Also reminder: He's not just going to stop at legal AND illegal immigrants. He's going to deport citizens too.
In your fevered dreams.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/08/trump-immigration-deportation-us-citizens
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shock-awe-trump-border-czar-tom-homan-plans/story?id=115972346
Pressed by CBS News last month about whether family separations will happen under Trump's next administration, Homan said one way to avoid them is to deport children and their parents -- "Families can be deported together," he said.
How are they deporting legal immigrants? There's nothing there saying the kids can't stay.
Lying through an appeal to emotion is still lying, Lying Jeffy.
Who's going to take care of them? On welfare at an orphanage or foster home?
I thought the idea was to reduce the welfare burden on the government. Now you're saying you want it to increase?
"On welfare at an orphanage or foster home?"
They're entitled to either.
"I thought the idea was to reduce the welfare burden on the government"
No more free house, free phone, free food, free internet, and a $2k/mo allowance for mom and dad will solve that.
The families we are talking about, they are not recent refugees. They are likely not even refugees at all. They have been here for a while and have created roots in the community, having a family and raising kids who are themselves citizens. So they are very likely not living in a free house with free food and a free phone.
But let the record show that the pro-family, pro-child team wants to create orphans and put the kids on welfare.
I also note that you were very quick to say "sure, welfare for the kids is fine!" when you and your team have spent the last 10 years pretending that your emphasis on immigration was all about cutting down on welfare expenses.
"The families we are talking about,"
Lesson #2 in Lying Jeffy speak.
His very next sentence begins with "They are likely". Which means everything after this is a made up story to apply to emotion.
"But let the record show that the pro-family, pro-child team wants to create orphans and put the kids on welfare."
This is the true CHEMJEFF RADICAL INDIVIDUALIST. It's very rare he is honest about his beliefs, but this is one of those times.
Jeffy truly is a loathsome, neo Marxist shitsack.
Does Jeff not know what orphan means? They still have parents. Parents are free to take them.
Just because one has continuously committed a crime for a long period of time does not excuse the commission of the crime.
So you are endorsing the concept of "anchor babies"?
LMAO.
Hopefully you first
Just drop him in the ocean.
You trying to create a tsunami?
I should be more careful.
Hopefully he blows up the Statue of Liberty. Should remove Lady Justice’s blindfold as well.
Cry harder, drunky.
He would also "keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists, and socialists out of America,"
That's right. Because "real Americans" can only be Christian conservatives. Anyone else is a "fake American", probably a seditious traitor.
Marxists aren’t human.
Deeeelicious!
Probably a seditious traitor... Like Mike Pence! Like General Milley! Hang them, execute them, and who needs a trial anyway?!?!?
Milley is a genuine traitor who boasted that he promised a Chinese general he would warn them in advance of an American attack before it happened because Trump. Plenty of spies and soldiers were shot in WW2 for exactly that.
Your Hang Mike Pence was a hoax.
Trumpanzees gone apeshit are a hoax when they don't get twat You are PervFectly working for... THIS time around! We have to forgive them... Till they succeed! Ditto Dear Supreme Cummander Salamander Megamander, until He becums Dear Supreme Cummander Salamander Megamurderer, Ruling while Marxist Moose-Mammary Necrophiliac Farter-Fuhrer is DROOLING!
"Because "real Americans" can only be Christian conservatives"
Go on, Jeffy, put your fedora on and tell us all about your raging hateboner for Xtians. Also, remember how on your blog you claimed to be a conservative? Maybe tell us more about that too.
I don't hate Christians and I don't hate conservatives. I do hate the idea that the only "real patriots" are Christian conservatives.
"I do hate the idea that the only "real patriots" are Christian conservatives."
A casual browser might think this is a reasonable statement. But Lying Jeffy is fabricating this idea from "Christian-hating communists,". What's even more fucked up is that quote is from his own op.
Never underestimate the ways Lying Jeffy can be dishonest.
Problem is, Jeffy, your "idea" is a terrible strawman argument.
Being against communism, Marxism, and socialism doesn’t automatically make you a conservative.
I think I see where so much of your problem with people here comes from….
Lying Jeffy has been spazzing out for about 12 hours straight. His poor mother has probably made multiple cheesy poof runs. I can't bring myself to imagine what the poor child tied up in his closet is going through.
The good news is that his posts today will benefit mental health science immensely.
As a compromise, I'm willing to give these "foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists, and socialists" helicopter rides halfway back to their points of origin.
I wouldn't want US taxpayers to foot the entire bill.
Keeping Marxists out is definitely a plus. P.F. course, that means you need to leave.
Poor Fiona.
Fiona is a cunt, she should self deport in solidarity
She's got as much straw as Sarcasmic.
The way in which Trump can solve the problem of illegal migration is to turn the US into a place where no one would want to go. He's making good progress on that.
Yeah, a place with low crime, low inflation and a secure border.
So terrible.
Good, move your fag self to mexico
Mexico is too good for him. Maybe Haiti?
Antarctica is even better.
Like most on the left they won't even consider moving to a country full of brown people. They will only consider lily white countries.
Remember when a bunch of white liberals from California moved to Mexico City during covid and passed off all the Mexicans living there?
He was just inaugurated today. Clear symptom of TDS.
Cry more loser; you LOST.
" . . . Though the White House fact sheet did not specify what that would involve . . . "
But whatever it is, I'm against it.
Trump Signals a Crackdown on Legal and Illegal Immigration
About time someone did.
Fiona - get this through your head.
This - THIS RIGHT HERE - is what an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted. What they voted for.
I don't particularly like this orange goofball. But I get it. You don't. I do, but you refuse to accept it. Americans are fucking done with illegal aliens.
Language.
Of 245 million eligible voters, 156 million voted. Trump got 49.8% percent of their votes. That amounts to 31.8% of eligible voters.
Less than a half of those who voted voted for him, and less than a third of eligible voters voted for him.
Overwhelming? Maybe like a disgusting fart.
How do those sour grapes taste, sarc?
Keep rationalizing it to yourself. It won't get any sweeter.
Don't worry. At some point, Team Red's outrageous actions will impact you personally, and in a negative way. That is the only way that you will ever start to question Team Red, when you personally are negatively affected by it. When that time comes, I will be first in line to tell you "I told you so".
Even then he'll blame Democrats.
More strawmen.
Team Red already does impact me. I'm not on their team. And I'm especially not on Team Blue, who hates me even more than Team Red does.
I want to be left alone, Jeff. You Leftists want to be coddled like some kind of morbidly obese Wall-E society. The Republicans want to be protected behind some kind of shield that can never be fully provided. Neither of you get it.
Leave me alone, get out of my way. The proper purpose of government is to facilitate that. That means locking up the murderers, rapists, thieves, pimps, and druggies. That also means killing, with extreme prejudice, any nation and everyone in it who threatens our way of life.
That's all I want from them.
There will never be a day when you say, "I told you so." There will likely be a day when I kick your starved corpse wearing a sign that said "you owed me" into a ditch, but never will it be the other way around. I'll probably take a piss in the ditch while I'm there.
How has Team Red negatively impacted you, personally?
So you try to change the subject when you're losing? Nice try, Jeffy, but stick to the subject you entered.
"...The Republicans want to be protected behind some kind of shield that can never be fully provided..."
TDS delivers more hallucinogenics than LSD.
I know, right? Like, maybe someday there's going to be a gargantuan natural disaster that could have been substantially mitigated -- perhaps even totally avoided -- were it not for the persistently idiotic policies of the party he prefers, right? Then he'll be sorry! Where would his precious partisan loyalty have gotten him then, huh?
HUH???
No, I'm thinking more along the lines of someone's rights being violated, or even just someone being extremely inconvenienced and irritated, by some Team Red policy. Like having to show papers at internal checkpoints in order to "catch the illegals". Or having to endure intrusive audits at one's business in order to "catch the illegals". Or being mistaken for an illegal one's self and having to go through the huge hassle of clearing one's name. You know, things like that.
You don't want to catch the illegals?
the illegals
oof
Did you stub your toe on reality?
Like having to show papers at internal checkpoints in order to "catch the illegals".
The majority of the population of the United States already lives in such an area. And that reality has survived Presidents from both major parties.
https://privacysos.org/constitution_free_zone/
^+1.
But Newsom held a special legislative session to authorize millions to "fight" Trump! And oversaw the demolition of several dams on the Klamath so the 'leaders' of stone-age cultures could watch fishies there! And signed the bill releasing water from the CA water system to make sure a local bait-fish is protected! And is not yet opposing other 'leaders' of stone-age cultures who oppose the first major reservoir construction in more than 40 years!
I'm sure LA residents are thrilled with the greaseball's priorities! He is a slimy pile of lefty shit, ain't he?
As if no democrat policy has ever done that.
If half of the eligible population couldn’t be arsed to vote, at worst they’re apathetic about immigration and the policies Trump represented, so their opinion doesn’t really matter.
(Caveat for principled non-voting, but you’ll never convince me that more than a small percentage of those exist.)
Disgusting fart? You’re confused. This isn’t about you.
America wants the illegals gone. Case closed.
So now you're using the same coping arguments that the progressive Democrats are?
What was it that her brown beau said?
'Elections have consequences'
I’m really looking forward to Reason’s coverage of the free speech executive order. Also who writes it.
"legal and illegal"
Oh... You mean like that *illegal* DACA order making it legal?
How legal can an illegal really be?
It baffles me SCOTUS couldn't even 'honorably' rule on that account.
Maybe immigration/naturalization policy should be written by congress.
Maybe the only thing the Executive should be doing is executing those decisions as written.
Not ignoring them or writing them by EO.
That said; It's GREAT ... literally AWESOME that Trump has chosen to base immigration standards on the 'Socialist' ideology. It's that 'Socialist' that makes the immigration an *invasion*.
How will the government know if a particular immigrant is a socialist or not, in order to try to keep that immigrant out?
Ask the immigrant? He/she will just lie and say no. Then what?
Check to see if they're wearing a red diaper?
Scrapping at the very bottom of a sensible barrel.....
Those who think their very existence should *entitle* them to anybodies greener-pasture that someone else constructed is definitely a 'socialist' mentality.
Lying would be the #2 'socialist' mentality.
So pretty easy for starters. Ask if they're here legally; and when it turns out they LIE ... they get exported.
Or, and just throwing it out there, they are coming in illegally from a socialist country. Not all illegals come from the southern borders you know.
So, recently I heard a NY Times interview with an illegal immigrant. She has been in the country without papers for about 20 years. She is married and has two children who are both citizens. As far as I could tell, she's not an invader. Other than illegal border crossing she doesn't appear to be breaking any laws. She goes to work, keeps her head down, and just lives her life and enjoys her family.
Now, maybe she's really a drug mule or an identity thief, I don't know. But assuming for the moment that the picture painted of her by the NY Times interview is basically accurate - and if it's not accurate of her, it's definitely accurate about someone out there - what is the benefit of deporting a person like this? How do you think America will be a better place if she is deported?
So she has been in violation of USA law for 20 years? Who's social security number is she working under?
She could be running her own business and have a TIN. That isn't breaking any laws.
But you don't know. And stop pretending you care.
Retarded answer. TIN is a class of identification numbers, not a single thing. SSNs are one example of a TIN. You may be referring to an ITIN which is also a TIN, and which specifically does not entitle someone to work legally in the United States. Or you may be intending to refer to an EIN which is for partnerships and corporations, but also does not entitle one to work in the United States. In any case, she's not legally permitted to work in the country. And as an illegal immigrant she's not supposed to be in the country at all.
I lived in a foreign country for 8 years. During that time I scrupulously obeyed their laws, including those relating to immigration and residency. I also learned the local language. I did this out of respect for the country and the people, and also because I did not want to get arrested or deported. Is it too much to expect that others coming to the United States should conduct themselves in the same manner?
Yes! Also, it’s xenophobic. /s because it’s hard to tell these days
No. Pedo Jeffy believes that foreigners have unlimited, unilateral access to the US, and that we owe them everything.
One less lawbreaker in the country.
Well, okay. But you could say the same thing about rounding up all the shoplifters or jaywalkers. And yet no one is suggesting mass incarceration for jaywalking. If one were to suggest such a thing - you know, to "enforce the law" and all - it would get laughed out of the room. Because it just wouldn't be worth the effort.
Every free society tolerates a little bit of illegal behavior for petty offenses, because the price of strict 100% enforcement of every law is too high. Not only would it be cost prohibitive, but it would require a literal police state for enough law enforcement to enforce all the laws.
So for the big crimes like rape and murder, yeah, those should be prosecuted fully. But as the severity of the crime goes down, then there is more of a cost/benefit analysis to be had. Eventually when you get to the pettiest of crimes, the cost/benefit analysis often doesn't work out.
So why would the cost/benefit analysis work out for deporting this woman?
Illegal entry isn’t jaywalking, you disingenuous tool. If we’re just throwing out random comparisons for aliens sneaking in, why stop at shoplifting or jaywalking? Why not bank robbery, murder, or child molestation? Funny how you conveniently pick the least serious crimes to make your point.
Because bank robbery, murder and child molestation aren't petty crimes. The case of someone whose only crime is illegal border crossing, who has been here for 20 years and by all accounts isn't some serious criminal, that counts as a petty offense as much as shoplifting or jaywalking.
"Because bank robbery, murder and child molestation aren't petty crimes"
Neither is illegal entry no matter how you try to twist it.
Please explain how illegal border crossing alone is as serious as bank robbery or murder.
Bank robbers are not entitled to keep the money from their crimes and illegal border crossers are not entitled to continue to live illegally in the country that they have illegally entered. The penalty for bank robbery includes incarceration and the penalty for illegally entering the USA includes deportation.
If you don’t think it should be illegal to cross the border of a sovereign nation (in contravention of the ways they have explicitly laid out you can), you are effectively saying borders shouldn’t exist.
Do you believe borders shouldn’t exist? Because, while a position I vehemently disagree with, that is still at least honest and coherent. Saying borders should exist but nobody should enforce, them is not.
I think trespassing on federal property is a good comparison. And Lying Jeffy thinks being shot in the face is the appropriate punishment.
Poor Lying Jeffy.
He's disgusting.
You’re comparing a crime to a minor infraction? Why don’t you compare illegal entry to parking tickets while you’re at it.
So disingenuous……….
""Every free society tolerates a little bit of illegal behavior for petty offenses,""
Unless your Trump. Then paying a woman to shut up becomes 34 felonies.
That is not the right question to ask.
The question is what is the benefit of letting her stay.
What is the benefit of letting you stay?
He’s a citizen. I know citizenship, and the constituent, mean nothing to a neo Marxist Sorosite, such as yourself. But it does to Americans.
Then she should be able to go back to her homeland and apply to come here legally.
Why can't she do that?
At this point in time, what would be the point of making her do that?
"At this point in time"
Lol, what the fuck.
Right, so what would be the point? So suppose we do it your way, the government deports her, she goes back to her home country, she patiently waits in line (which is probably 20 years long or so), if she doesn't die of old age or cartel violence first she gets to enter the country legally, she applies for permanent residency where she has to prove that she is able to live here peacefully and support herself. She's basically already done that last bit! So what would be the point of sending her back to jump through all those hurdles, when she's already passed the final test?
Because she didn’t come here legally in the first place, and doesn’t deserve to cut in line for her convenience. None of this is for the convenience of the foreigner. It’s all here for the benefit of an American citizens.
Of course, none of that means anything to you. It’s like explaining empathy to a psychopath.
lol, that’s a fun little game to play.
"enjoys her family" by living off the taxpayer (socialist government)?
51% of immigrants have lived off the taxpayer.
75% of immigrants vote for MORE living off the taxpayer.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure-out the who's who of immigration law is an utter failure at what it is suppose to be doing.
51% of immigrants have lived off the taxpayer.
Maybe she's one of the 49%.
A lot of maybes and coulds in your responses to this probably complete bullshit story Lying Jeffy.
It needs to be one of the 25% who doesn't vote for MORE when that time comes.
Honestly. If it was entirely up to me...
Which it isn't. It is up to the voting citizens at large (congress).
If she was to 'own' up and admit she trespassed and was willing to pay her debt to society for such crime (say a $2500 fine) as well as had a history of never believing the Gov-Guns was there to STEAL from others for her and had a decent verifiable excuse for trespassing (not some BS about 'your greener-pasture' is a better life for me) and had no history of crime and a good work history and proclaimed the US Constitution as a Supreme Law over the US government by the people and made believable a belief to that a effect. I'd say; see if she meets requirements for an work-visa.
But you see. No matter how much rose-dust people throw; that isn't the majority of cases. Not even close. It's just like sympathy for the homeless. Homeless isn't something that just slammed into homeless people. 99.9% of the time homeless is a result of that persons LACK of EFFORT not to be homeless.
Trump is such a racist!
https://x.com/martinwalsh__/status/1881526936524251449
The Democrats were the party of devils. What absolute fucking monsters.
He also hates gays:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHkNxQVRj5U
BTW, the guy has been managing hospitality businesses in NYC for how many years? Just a guess: 25% of those employed in the hospitality industry are gay; could be low. Ever see a lawsuit against Trump?
Me neither.
My guess? "No more ice cream old man."
"Barron whispered something to Biden and his faces instantly changed
What did Barron say? lol"
https://x.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1881517643720777745
Robby Suave on Fox
Perhaps if Biden had chosen to not implement policies that massively increased the amount of illegal immigration into the US, the current President would not just not be Trump but would have been in a good position to expand 'refugee resettlement' programs.
As always, the Progressive Left's worst enemy is itself.
Jeff played that game a few posts up.
It’s a complete mystery why conservatives and independents don’t take them (democrats and their enablers) at their word.
> the U.S. has resettled heavily vetted people
These people are not 'heavily vetted'. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Afghanistan withdrawal you could expect that the people *who were heavily vetted* (people who worked with Coalition forces, like interpreters) were the ones LEAST likely to get permission to come to the US. Instead we took planeloads of random Afghan males.
You know what's really bad about this article?
Harrigan - HARRIGAN! - makes assertions, like 'heavily vetted' and provides a link . . . to another Reason article by here where she provides no evidence or data on the level of vetting.
Open borders fanatics are always disingenuous. Pedo Jeffy is a prime example.
>predictable migration pathway could drive sufficiently desperate migrants to attempt illegal crossings instead.
Who are these desperate migrants? Mostly people from south of Mexico who are coming to the US to pursue welfare. *The Mexicans* are coming across and visiting just fine - the ones without criminal records a mile long. The latter might be 'desperate' enough to attempt an illegal crossing but they shouldn't be getting in even at the CBP app in the first place.
>And punitive border policies come with human costs. During the first Trump administration's implementation of Remain in Mexico, migrants forced to await court dates south of the border reported numerous instances of rape, kidnapping, and torture.
Sounds like it would have been safer to not make the trip.
And, frankly, I'm not buying that several *million* people in these countries are all at danger of 'persecution'.
I don't think her 270k illegal immigrants waiting at the southern border to be let in makes the case she thinks it does.
>it's clear that the crackdown to come will sweep up legal and illegal immigrants alike.
Even your article points out that the same avenues for legal entry are available. The only thing that affects them is its harder to make an appointment with a CBP officer for an interview - which they were already really difficult to get because a) the scheduling app basically doesn't work and b) the officers were swamped by the number of requests, now that it was basically effortless.
Thanks for sharing the great news, Fiona!
Meaningless Posturing?
Send troops to the border! To do what? Administrative work as is rumored? Doing so should scare the illegal aliens invading our nation as well as the gangs (misnamed "cartels") terrorizing cities.
In the novel Retribution Fever, sending troops to the border had a real purpose other than political posturing as follows:
BEGIN EXCERPT:
"National Borders
“Exigimos que se reconozca constitucionalmente la pertenencia a México de todos los territorios Mexicanos.” -Aztlán (06JUL2015)
For decades, these United States had allowed an unarmed invasion via a massive breach of the borders — invasion by illegal aliens including children and adolescents, primarily Mexican nationals. The Mexicans called their part of the invasion “La Reconquista”. They demanded that the belonging to Mexico of all former Mexican territories be recognized constitutionally. Let us not forget the continual series of demonstrations by Mexicans waving Mexican flags on American soil while demanding self-proclaimed, so-called rights found nowhere in our Constitution or in the Mexican.
Of note, being out-of-uniform, the invaders would have received no protection under provisions of the third Geneva Convention of 1929; however, subsequently and misguidedly the Convention had been revised several times thereafter in the name of “humanitarianism”. The adverse consequences of those revisions, while well intentioned, revealed the obscenity that the term had become.
Three. In the matter of defending our national borders, that defense represents the primary reason for the existence of the federal government. Article IV, Section 4 of the original Constitution demanded that the government defend our sovereign territory . . . whatever the cost to us or to those who intentionally would violate it. As it is said, “A nation that refuses to defend its borders becomes a nation in name only.”
Accordingly, adult aliens attempting to enter these United States illegally outside regular channels such as by crossing the Rio Grande River will receive a single warning in English then a single warning shot from a firearm. If they ignore those warnings, they will be shot with intent to kill. The consequence of shooting merely to wound could place an added economic burden upon American taxpayers to give medical care to those wounded. Children clearly pre-pubescent will be detained for immediate deportation ...."
END EXCERPT