The Original Alcatraz Closed for Costing Too Much. Alligator Alcatraz Should Too.
Florida’s elected officials should learn from the original facility that inspired the state’s newest immigrant detention center's name, and change course before it’s too late.

The newest state-run immigration detention center, Alligator Alcatraz, the brain-child of Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, has been touted as an "efficient" and "low-cost opportunity" to house, process, and directly deport migrant detainees. But much like the original Alcatraz prison, elected officials should be wary of the rising cost that remote detention facilities have on taxpayers.
Alligator Alcatraz is located on a 30-square-mile parcel of land in the Everglades, chosen in part for its nearly 11,000-foot unused airstrip capable of directly accepting and deporting immigrant detainees. The land's remoteness was another selling point for the Florida officials. "They ain't going anywhere once they are here…because good luck getting to civilization," said Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) during a press conference on July 1, the day before the facility opened. "The security is amazing. Natural and otherwise," he continued, referring to the alligator- and python-laden perimeter surrounding the temporary tents used to house detainees.
It was the site's remoteness that inspired the facility's name, an homage to the original Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary located in the San Francisco Bay. DeSantis even quipped during an opening day tour of the Florida facility that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) could potentially reopen Alcatraz as a state-run immigration detention center with the financial support of the Department of Homeland Security. But there are more similarities between Florida's Alligator Alcatraz and the notorious federal prison that DeSantis may want to consider.
Alcatraz, which ran as a federal prison from 1934 to 1963, was the product of a "collaborative effort of Attorney General Homer Cummings and Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Sanford Bates [to produce] a high-profile prison that represented the Justice Department's response to fears around public safety and organized crime," according to the National Parks Service. "A remote site was sought" specifically to "prohibit constant communication with the outside world." Despite San Francisco citizens' concerns (residents near Alligator Alcatraz oppose the facility), the experimental federal prison opened to house the country's worst criminals. During its time in operation, Alcatraz's inmate population averaged about 260 to 275, never reaching its 336 capacity limit.
The maximum-security facility eventually closed "because the institution was too expensive," according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Along with needed restoration and maintenance projects, the daily operational costs, coming in at $10.10 per capita in 1959 (or $111.96 adjusted for inflation), "were nearly three times more expensive…than any other Federal prison" because of the prison's physical isolation. The facility's isolation, although originally perceived as an asset, meant all supplies had to be shipped to Alcatraz, including food and "nearly one million gallons of water…each week."
Similarly, Alligator Alcatraz's remote and rudimentary Everglades location means that all supplies must be trucked in, including food, water, and generators for electricity. After only eight days of construction, the facility's temporary tents and chain-link cells now house over 700 migrants, with plans to hold up to 5,000. Detainees have already reported limited access to water and insufficient food.
Documents leaked shortly after opening revealed that the facility's cost may have already ballooned to over $600 million—$150 million more than the initially estimated $450 million per year—calling into question Uthmeier's claim that the detention facility would be "low-cost."
The cost of the state-run immigration detention center is being covered by Florida's taxpayers, with an opportunity for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's $625 million Shelter and Services Program fund. More money for similar projects may be on the way: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act set aside a $3.5 billion fund to reimburse states for, in part, the "temporary criminal detention of aliens," as part of a larger $45 billion appropriation to more than double the nation's current immigration detention capacity to 100,000 beds. The push comes as detention space has hindered President Donald Trump's overarching mass deportation goals.
Ultimately, taxpayers are on the hook for such exorbitant budgets, even while Americans are increasingly against Trump's crackdown. Costs aren't the only reason why Florida's state-run immigration detention center should close. But just as the original Alcatraz closed down for its ballooning costs, so too should Alligator Alcatraz.
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
Once the prison costs more than illegal immigrants do I'll agree with you.
Was the meal plan for the guards at Alcatraz 1.0 as taxpayer friendly as this new iteration?
Yup.
Conservatives still think that the Trump Administration wants to save money.
Was there a surplus last month? Did reconciliation go through? People being fired? Recission bills going through?
That surplus was such a joke. The deficit so far this year is a $trillion dollars. Putting any credence in that pathetic little surplus to be anything other than accounting trick is the hallmark of a Trump fanboi.
Come on! DOGE saved about a day's worth of federal spending! A whole day!
Puts your fuck tou cut spending lie to the test. You dont actually want cuts. You use the excuse that everything isnt fixed in one bill to attack cuts.
Well, I guess we should just double the federal budget then.
Fuck you.
If ridding the nation of illegal immigrants required doubling the federal budget and suspending the Constitution, I'm certain you would approve. Anything to hurt those you hate.
Again. You support 80B a year spent on illegals and the secondary effects of rising costs and welfare for citizens whole you pretend to be against government spending and are against every cut.
Youre a dishonest leftist. Full jeff.
Next on the Hit Parade from Dear Orange Leader TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer and Ron DeSatan:
Alligator Alcatraz, meet Auspicious Auschwitz! Europe will be forced to relinquish the museum at the former cuntcentration campy-camp of Auschwitz, to be turned into an American Gulag and torture chamber! The “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign will be hauled down, to be replaced by a MUCH larger and MUCH more garish, glaring neon-and-LEDs sign, which will announce, “Welcome to Auspicious Auschwitz, illegal sub-humans and other scum! Good luck! Tariffs from The Donald are setting you FREE!!!”
LOL imagine believing a "jOurNaLiSt" when they try to tell you they care about the cost of government doing something. They'll happily ignore eleventy billion dollars being spent on transgender comic book artists in Nepal but this holding center for illegal immigrants is a bridge too far!
If cost is Autumn's main concern, shouldn't she be advocating for illegal aliens to take the $1000 and a plane flight back home? Did I miss that persuasion piece?
To me the policy should be: If you take the $1000 and leave on your own, it will not be held against you in future legal immigration efforts. If we have to come and get you, you will never be allowed to step foot in the country again, even as a tourist.
Obviously that would be better than what we have been doing for the last half a century. But then anything would be better than what we've been doing for the last half a century. Which is why whatever DJT does on immigration, no matter how sloppy, polls somewhere between 60% and 80%.
Sorry, Autumn. I have no interest in hearing those who made the mess complain about the way it gets cleaned up.
The original Alcatraz was a prison. Alligator Alcatraz is a immigrant detention center. They're being held until deportation or court appearance. It will house the worst of the deportables, including killers and pedos. We didn't build Alcatraz 2.0 to house migrants wanted for not paying traffic tickets.
If you want AA to be cost effective, just clamp down on illegal immigration. Even by CATO's estimate, 6% of ICE detainees are violent criminals. That's a whole lot of criminals let in.
What is the argument here - we can't have Alligator Alcatraz to isolate and detain dangerous illegal migrants? They should just sleep in cages like the Obama days? We should just extend them pathway to citizenship? Because most immigrants aren't dangerous? Oops, but these people are.
Think about what you're saying. If you start condoning child slave labor or legalization for criminals to oppose immigration enforcements, you sort of become the bad guys.
Illegals should be presumed dangerous!
Just read about the Colonge Sex Attacks
We didn't build Alcatraz 2.0 to house migrants wanted for not paying traffic tickets.
Who wants to tell him...
https://reason.com/2025/07/14/hundreds-of-alligator-alcatraz-detainees-dont-have-criminal-records/
We should just extend them pathway to citizenship?
The peaceful ones? Yes.
They already have citizenship.
I mean citizenship here.
But I'll compromise on a legal work and residency permit instead.
Negotiation is the third stage of grief. Depression and acceptance to follow.
The illegal aliens are being deported.
It's not going to work. They are just going to come back. And if they don't come back, their relatives and neighbors will.
But in the meantime, our money and our liberties will be squandered on this futile attempt.
It is like the drug war. The government just cannot eradicate drugs through coercion.
We are all going to lose, just your team hasn't realized it yet.
Taxpayer money has been squandered far too long subsidizing the illegal aliens.
Yes, throw in the towel carrying the water for the free riders that are now going home.
The overwhelming majority of the "free riders" are staying put. That is because they are natural-born citizens.
Jesse says that the illegal immigrants get $80 billion a year of welfare. I think that's an inflated estimate, but let's go with that.
In the Big Beautiful Bill that was passed, $170 billion more is going to immigration enforcement. That is on top of what ICE already gets.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/gop-gives-ice-massive-budget-increase-to-expand-trumps-deportation-effort
And, according to the government's own quotas, they only expect to deport 1 million illegal immigrants per year. Over four years that won't even be half of them.
So, they are going to wind up spending billions and billions on costs to kick them out and keep them out, AND they aren't even going to get even half of them.
By contract, we could let them stay. Will some of them get welfare? Oh probably. But they will also pay taxes, they will also be able to LEGALLY grow their wealth and have a legacy to hand down to their kids so that their kids won't be dirt poor and they won't be using welfare. AND, the government isn't spending gobs of money taking away our liberties.
I vote for the latter plan. What do you think?
The domestic free riders have citizenship here. I agree, long-term goal should be to eliminate all forms of govt funded welfare.
If all the illegals currently here self-deported, imagine the savings. Hope you’ll be championing this cause.
Until then, the deportation of illegal aliens will continue.
I support anyone's choice to migrate to wherever they wish free of coercion. If they wish to migrate here, great. If they wish to migrate somewhere else, great. It ought to be, their choice. I'm not interested in dictating to anyone where they MUST go.
The label "illegal" on "illegal immigrant" means nothing to me. It is like the label "illegal" on "illegal pot smoker" or "illegal prostitution". I don't care.
Which is more important, the liberty of the individual, or the desires of the community?
Let's just assume that illegal immigrants receive $80 billion in welfare per year.
Why do you want to spend twice that amount to kick out only half of them?
You aren’t the arbiter of whether the illegal aliens get to stay. They are being deported.
Speaking of taxpayer savings, looks like your linked PBS is getting a haircut.
The individuals getting deported will get to decide that when they return home.
The fact that you want to spend MORE than the amount that they purportedly receive in welfare in order to kick them out, suggests that your main motivation here isn't dictated by fiscal concerns. You want them gone for other reasons. What is the main reason why you want to see them gone? It isn't "but welfare", we've established that.
Face it: At this point, amnesty is the fiscally responsible solution.
Those who want to proceed with the War on Immigration have motivations beyond fiscal concerns.
Some time ago, I invested in chainsaws, a wood splitter, and a wood burning appliance. The initial costs were more than the annual fuel costs of staying coupled to the system. It all paid for itself in a few years. The O&M costs are far lower than had I stayed coupled.
Looks like ICE is on a similar path. It is a shame that certain political persuasions allowed it to get this bad. Disgraceful.
Anyhow, the illegals are getting deported. And if they self-deport, savings would be realized much sooner. My adventures to other countries never involved taking welfare from their citizens and I respected the limits of my stay.
NYC is estimated to have spent about $10B housing migrants since 2022. Has anyone at Reason suggested NYC stop?
No price is too high when we're talking about removing illegals. Freedom, liberty, privacy, justice, rule of law, the Constitution... all of these things are on the alter of the Church of Trump, ready to be sacrificed if it means ridding the nation of this vermin.
Those who simp for illegals ignore the violence against Americans, especially sex attacks against white girls, just like the NRA ignores all the shootings in the ghetto, especially school shootings and gang violence against black children!
Those who simp for Trump would throw away everything America stands for so they could see violence done upon people they hate.
Translation:
Agreed. You support the 80B a year spent on illegals. No cost is too high for you.
As for the rest... you cheered on every violation of law and freedom against Trump because youre a leftist fascist fuck.
The deep blue sanctuary cities decided the price was too high, that’s why they started bitching about Biden’s handling of the border*.
*By Biden I of course mean whatever hand was up his ass puppeteering Pudding Pop.
Just a random thought:
These detention facilities are actually part of a function given to the federal government in the US Constitution.
Where is the financial concern from reason when a gazillion tax dollars are spent by agencies not authorized in the US Constitution?
Where is the financial concern from reason when a gazillion tax dollars are spent by agencies not authorized in the US Constitution?
There are many. But because they contradict the narrative about tReason, people who further the narrative pretend that they don't exist.
They are used by reason and other leftists to attack actual cuts. That's all. You've never supported an actual single cut.
These detention facilities are actually part of a function given to the federal government in the US Constitution.
Where does the Constitution grant the government the power to regulate immigration? (NOT naturalization, but immigration)
Do you really want to go there, dumbass?
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power...
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Which means they can regulate immigration as well, dipshit. it means Congress can decide who should and should not be a US citizen. It also means they can decide who comes in to become a US citizen or not, and who can be excluded. You failed again, Jeffy.
No, it doesn't. It says naturalization.
Immigration and naturalization are two separate processes.
Immigration is simply travel to and fro. Naturalization is the process to become a citizen. Very different.
So I completely agree with you that the Constitution grants the government the power to set rules on naturalization. But immigration is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
You know how the left has a practice of redefining words to change the meaning of things they don't like, right? Well Team Trump has already redefined "due process", "jurisdiction" and "emergency" in order to give them greater power to harm these illegals they hate so much. Why not redefine "naturalization" too?
In this case I don't think it is about redefining words. I think instead it is that they tend to say they are "in favor of the Constitution", but really it's the Constitution that is in their heads, rather than the actual one.
The government's authority over immigration was completely invented by the Supreme Court. It does not originate from the text of the Constitution. But they don't want to hear that.
Oh the fucking irony of jeffsarc saying this.
They literally have zero shame.
Sarc is the gatekeeper to the definition of tu quoque.
Seems to also be a fan of redefining the terms 'strawman' and 'ad hominem'.
“Immigration is the movement of persons into a new country with the intent to reside in that country. This includes state-sanctioned immigration (sometimes referred to as “legal immigration”) and unlawful immigration (sometimes referred to as “illegal immigration”).”
Immigration is not simply travel to and from one country to another, it’s entry into a country by a citizen of another country with the specific intent of residing in a country other than that of which they are a citizen.
You can read the full text here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration#:~:text=Immigration%20is%20the%20movement%20of,as%20%E2%80%9Cillegal%20immigration%E2%80%9D).
Yes, I was a little glib when I said "moving to and fro". Immigration involves residency at the new destination. But nonetheless it is distinct from naturalization.
Immigration =/= simply travel to and fro.
Ignore. Should have scrolled a little further before posting.
Maybe you can show us where immigration is mentioned in the Constitution.
Hint: it isn't.
Section 9: Powers Denied Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
“The U.S. Constitution allows for the defense of the country's borders. Specifically, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees that the federal government will protect each state against invasion. Additionally, Article I, Section 10 acknowledges a state's sovereign interest in protecting its borders and allows states to defend themselves if the federal government fails to do so.”
The term "invasion", AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION, is about an organized military force directed by a foreign government intent on conquering land. It is not about a bunch of unorganized penniless migrants who have zero desire to conquer anything.
I completely agree that the federal government has the authority and the duty to repel bona-fide invasions. I do not agree that simple migration of peaceful people constitutes an "invasion" as the term is used in the Constitution.
The text of Article IV, Section 4 makes no reference to an organized or military invasion:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence”
https://mises.org/mises-wire/what-did-founders-mean-invasion
I may be able to understand that interpretation relative to the use of the U.S. military to assist enforcement of immigration law which is what the Fee article is discussing.
Answer this: Is there a legal process for non citizens to enter and remain in the U.S.? And if there is such established process, has that process ever been found to be unconstitutional?
Imagine how much it would have cost if we'd built it in California!?
https://abc7.com/post/new-downtown-los-angeles-high-rise-building-house/14975022/
New downtown Los Angeles high-rise building to house homeless in $600,000 units
There are 278 units in the 19-story development known as the Weingart Tower. It's intended to help people currently without shelter on Skid Row and it will be L.A.'s largest permanent support housing project.
"Skid Row is a community," said Mayor Karen Bass during Wednesday's event. "It's not just throw-away people. It is a community, and to bring that community together in beautiful housing like this is what everybody deserves."
The building will have an entire floor of offices for case workers, in addition to a list of impressive amenities: a gym, art room, music room, computer room and library. Residents will enjoy six common balconies and a café.
It's considered affordable housing, but the cost to build this type of project still adds up. Each unit costs nearly $600,000 and it's being funded by taxpayers.
The $165 million project is receiving permanent financing from Proposition HHH, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 2016. The new tower is also receiving state housing funds and $56 million in state tax credits.
This will be the first of three towers. The second tower is set to open in 18 months and the third is in its development stages.
In 2016, LA voters passed Proposition HHH, which allows for $1.2 billion in bonds for developments intended to house unsheltered residents.
It has to be cheaper than luxury hotels.
MAGAs: No cost too great to impose suffering on immigrants.
The suffering is the point. They must be made to suffer so that they know never to come back.
Molly: No cost is too great to support illegal immigrants.
Illegal, you cunt.
No, the MAGAs have shown that they don't care about immigration status. They are deporting people who are in the US legally.
Poor Molly.
Too bad you aren’t one of them.
If every single illegal immigrant were deported, how do you imagine your life will be better? How do you think the nation will be better?
Conservativism is all about existential threats. Commies, drugs, terrorists, trannies, illegals ... all existential threats. They're everywhere. If violence is not used upon them, the nation is doomed. That's what unites conservatives. Some threat that, if not met with violence, will destroy the nation. What would they do if all illegals were deported? Wage violence on the next existential threat to the nation. Whatever that might be. They're addicted to fear and violence.
I do think that modern conservatism requires an enemy to fight against. In their personal narrative they must view themselves as the heroes defending America against the depredations of the enemy. Either the Commies, the Muslims, the trannies, and now the penniless Guatemalans. Without an enemy to fight, they can't be the heroes. So in that vein, if all of the illegal immigrants were deported tomorrow, they'd probably start a war with China.
It's their political mindset.
Progressives see the world in terms of oppressors and victims.
Conservative see the world as something full of threats to their very existence.
Libertarians see the world in terms of liberty and coercion.
The reason why libertarianism doesn't sit well with the other two is that progressives and conservatives agree that coercion is the best tool for solving problems, while libertarians oppose coercion under most circumstances and just want people to be left alone.
Or I'll just quote Heinlien.
Please stop with the TMI here and get a room.
How are you so fucking full of yourself and lie about your leftist beleifs? Everything you do is done in an attempt at appeal to morality when you have non. Same with jeff. Why you demand taxpayers fund your sick Marxist views.
Really? Which party has become centered on existential threats? Which party supports "academic research" on one pending catastrophe after another? Which party is dedicated to actual snowflakes who tell us that just the existence of contradictory ideas is a violent fatal threat?
Which party do you really support, you fucking retard?
Oh, Team Red is not the only ones who view themselves as heroes in their personal narratives. Team Blue does it too, but it tends not to view groups of people to fight against.
Which party do you really support
Team Liberty.
“Team Blue does it too, but it tends not to view groups of people to fight against.”
As long as those groups of people are not on Team Red.
And therein lies the problem - you, and people like you, see all of this as a binary choice. It’s not. And the fact is that those who are not on either team make up the single largest voting block in the country should provide the evidence.
Team Liberty supports stealing tens of billions of dollars annually from American workers via taxes and transferring that to deadbeat illegal aliens. Team Liberty supports stealing tens of billions of dollar from American workers via taxes and transferring that to an autocratic dictator an ocean and a continent away.
Hahahahaha
White Dudes want a word.
"What about them! Look at them! Over there! Them! And you! Look at you! You! Tu Quooooooque!!!!!"
Yeah, you gonna bed one of my muted stalkers tonight! Fo Sho! You go boy!
Look at how angry sarc gets when you point out the flaws of his lefty boyfriends argument.
Never an intelligent argument from sarc or jeff.
The middle class will still exist and remain a threat to the State.
That's what boggles my mind about you "libertarians." At the end of the day, you people - when you take positions like this - are ultimately serving the State; a rich and powerful elitist class with absolute control over everyone else.
The middle class prevents that from happening. It allows for independence, autonomy, self-determination, and zero reliance on the government to provide for its needs.
The whole point of the (anti-)American left's "open borders" mentality is to displace, upset, and overwhelm the middle class' ability to stay a middle class.
Punting the illegals out unceremoniously gives the middle class a chance to reassert itself and take back some control from an increasingly Marxist state that is out to destroy them.
'Alligator Alcatraz is located on a 30-square-mile parcel of land in the Everglades, chosen in part for its nearly 11,000-foot unused airstrip capable of directly accepting and deporting immigrant detainees.'
The real cost efficiencies will come when Musk operates one-way space planes to Mars. Think of it as the next Australia.
So, tell us, Autumn. What is your less expensive alternative plan for detaining and deporting the illegal aliens?
There has to be a Final Solution, doesn't there?
Trump is hitler! Drink!
Wait you already are. Was Maddow a good show tonight?
Meanwhile you and jeff cheer the killing of conservatives while you pretend to be moral lol.
How about path to citizenship?
I'll compromise on legal residency and work permits.
Does that work for you?
Too late to negotiate.
They are getting tossed.
I’ve seen this show before. I think I was 9.
You will regret the reboot.
as mentioned above, it will cost more than what the illegal immigrants are supposedly getting with welfare, and it will also lead to the erosion of all of our liberties.
And what is the end goal here? What do you expect to happen once all of the illegals are gone? How do you think your life will improve? How do you think the nation will be better?
What about our right to be safe?
You ignore sex attacks against white girls, just like the NRA ignores shootings against black children.
No. They should be forever barred from American citizenship - or even American temporary visa - unless they self-deport right now.
You want a compromise? That's a legitimate one. Get out now, voluntarily, and we'll let you ring our doorbell later down the line. Don't, and it's final destination CECOT.
Set a deadline: July 25, that's fair. If they haven't self-deported by July 25, they and all their kin will NEVER see American citizenship. Ever. One - JUST ONE - criminal in the family ruins it forever for the entire family tree.
THAT'S a real compromise. It puts the choice in their hands, it offers hope for the future, and it doesn't force us to unwillingly or needlessly suffer them any more than we are legally obligated to.
Here's another compromise:
They all become American citizens by conquest. That is, we go to war, openly invade their nation, kill all its politicians and military and any dissidents who don't welcome their newfound freedom, and establish American law. They can exist as unorganized territories with limited Constitutional protections (fundamental rights, mainly) under the rule of the American military at first, as they assimilate, start to self-govern, and ultimately earn statehood. The longer they take to go from unorganized to organized is 100% on them. By extension, they all become American citizens eventually.
Another reasonable compromise that does not involve giving the burglars a bedroom in the house and a list of chores he's expected to perform.
Does that work for you?
Sure. After they leave, they should be allowed to return to work here, as long as they can prove they have employment, do not receive any public benefits, and can pass an adequate vetting process.
No citizenship.
We presume all of them to be a threat to public safety!
Autumn Billings a threepeat damn fool who must have flunked every math class she took.
Is that $600 million its construction cost, or its operating cost? You label the $450 million as an operating cost, but not the $600 million.
Once again, do the numbers.
Assume each guard employee costs $200,000 a year, what with overhead, benefits, all that razzamatazz. You need five guard employees for each guard position, allowing for shifts, weekends, vacations, holidays, and sick time. That's $1 million per guard position. That $600 million funds 600 guard positions.
Google says the average prison has 5-10 guards per prisoner, but it's not clear if that employees or positions. I'm going to assume employees simply because bigger numbers are scarier.
10,000 deportees would thus equate to 1000-2000 guards, or 200-400 guard positions.
Hey! 600 and 200-400 are close enough for back of the envelope calculations.
NOT EXORBITANT. Those guards are going to be necessary wherever the deportees are housed.
Autumn Billings is incompetent.
Or, we could not spend the money on guards who are "guarding" peaceful people who aren't a threat to anyone.
If they were peaceful people who aren't a threat, they would leave voluntarily.
Amnesty is better than mass deportation.
No, it's not.
If one steals your car, is your response going to be, "Well, go ahead and let him have it."
Or are you going to want restitution and satisfaction?
Wrong!
These illegals are a threat to us, especially the white girls among us!
Amnesty guarantees massive illegal entries in the future. We've tried that before and know the outcome.
Now there is blood on your hands.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-defends-immigration-tactics-after-california-worker-death-2025-07-13/
They started it. The blood is on their own hands, as well as of their enablers.
Millie Tibbetts's blood is on your hands.
Rachel Morin's blood is on your hands.
Laken Riley's blood is on your hands.
All killed because illegals were trying to rape their pussies!