Donald Trump

How To Understand Trump's Immigration Raids

ProPublica’s Dara Lind on how the president’s workplace raids affect consumers, employers, and immigrants.

|

HD Download

Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign by warning that America had become a "dumping ground" for immigrants, and that Mexico in particular was sending criminals and people with "lots of problems." His presidency has been marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric. 

In the summer of 2019, President Trump previewed sweeping immigration raids, tweeting that "Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States." 

The Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, had already conducted raids targeting undocumented immigrants, but Trump was promising a series of actions that were intended to at least create the impression of a step-up in immigration enforcement around the country. 

That culminated in early August, when Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents conducted one of the largest worksite immigration raids in U.S. history, arresting nearly 700 chicken plant workers in Mississippi on suspicion of working illegally. The raids, which were conducted jointly with the Department of Justice, left young children separated from their parents.

The Trump administration has defended the raids, saying they had been in the works for over a year—and arguing that the workplaces were exploiting undocumented workers.

Are these raids just for show? Does Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric actually encourage asylum seekers? And what's the connection between the Obama-era raids and Trumps? Reason's Peter Suderman sat down with ProPublica reporter Dara Lind to discuss these questions and more.

Interview by Peter Suderman. Intro and Graphics by Mark McDaniel. Edited by Ian Keyser. Cameras by McDaniel and Regan Taylor.

'Bottom Feeders' by Audiobinger is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

Photo Credits:

Ice/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Charles Reed/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom
NATALIE KREBS/UPI/Newscom
Yin Bogu Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

NEXT: Will Brexiters Bring Free Trade Back to Britain?

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. He went beyond Shikha and brought in ProPublica. It’s hilarious if not sad.

  1. How To Understand Trump’s Immigration Raids

    Answer 1: Trump was partly elected to enforce immigration law to deport as many illegals from the USA as possible.

    Lefty Answer: Trump is Hitler.

    1. Righty answer (i.e. white supremacist answer): Trump is saving us and the white civilization from being replaced by brown people who are invading us.

      By the way, Trump wasn’t elected to really enforce immigration laws, otherwise he would enforce the current immigration law that exist pertaining to asylum seekers who are applying for asylum at ports of entry LEGALLY yet being denied entry by Trump’s goons which is actually quote ILLEGAL.

      No, they voted for him because he promised them white supremacist lot a wall placed along the southern border that Mexico was going to pay, neither of the two promises being kept as we know. White supremacists, such as you lovecons…whatever, are too gullible not to be easily suckered by a New York con man who spoke your language of bigotry and hate.

      1. Poor OM sock.

        He’s never been to the South where Black Americans often outnumber White Americans and Brown Americans. Commifornia where Brown Americans out number White Americans and Black Americans.

        1. What “Sock”, you fool? Go fuck yourself and your mother. I’ve been posting comments in Hit&Run since 2005. I’ve dealt with the likes of Joe, Tony and others of their ilk. You’re nothing new. YOU, you bigoted fool, are nothing than a white supremacist hiding behind a wall of faux conservatism who came here to spew hate and racism. You’re NOTHING!

          Better get your tikki torch and start chanting with empty, eerie looks, because YOU WILL BE REPLACED──by people better than you.

          Dumbass.

          1. How come you chose to sneak into an Anglo mostly white country? All those superior countries with brown people exist for you, just get out your compass and head in the opposite direction the needle is pointing.

          2. Get your Mexican ass out of my country. Fucking illegal.

          3. Better get your tikki torch and start chanting with empty, eerie looks, because YOU WILL BE REPLACED──by people better than you.

            Huh, guess it really is about demographic replacement.

          4. Wow WHihh, way to give away the game.

      2. It’s sad when you realize you are so fucking stupid that you have to basically resort to namecalling and screaming racist in order to try to win an argument.

        I’ll pray for you OM.

        1. The gloves are off, JesseAz or whatever your name may be. I’ve been civil most of the time, since I’ve been here ──since 2005─ yet I find that even after one or your white allies mowed down dozens of innocent people for being BROWN and MEXICAN, you still find time to spew hatred. So you know what? I DON’T CARE. I say: Fuck you to you, as many times as I can, you white supremacist motherfuckers. You WILL be replaced──by better people, won’t matter their hues. I will be busy espousing libertarianism with them and praying with and for them. Not you – you’re NOTHING. Go fuck yourself.

          1. Holy shit, you’re too fucking stupid to see my name is Jesse. Hi-fucking-liarious.

            You’ve never been civil dumbass. All you do is resort to ad hominem attacks.

            You may want to tell my wife and children I’m a white supremacist while you’re at it. You may also want to go desecrate Cesar Chavez’s grave, because he also wasn’t a retarded dumbfuck and new what would happen with uncontrolled inflow of low skilled workers.

            But then again, you’re probably too stupid to actually understand anything like facts or history.

            The only hatred here is you. And you have resorted to it because you have no ability for formulate logic.

            1. You may also want to go desecrate Cesar Chavez’s grave, because he also wasn’t a retarded dumbfuck and new what would happen with uncontrolled inflow of low skilled workers.

              Cesar Chavez didn’t oppose illegal immigration because he thought it was bad for the economy per se. He opposed it out of narrow self-interest: because farm labor employers would hire illegal immigration to undermine his United Farm Workers union. He didn’t have a problem with the unskilled labor itself; he had a problem with unskilled labor that wasn’t in his union.

              In fact, Chavez vigorously supported Reagan’s amnesty in 1986. So much for some principled belief against unskilled labor.

              1. Um, isn’t that what Jesse said?

                1. No. Chavez didn’t fight against illegal labor because he thought it was bad for America, as Jesse insinuates. He fought against it because he thought it was bad for his union.

                  1. ” he also wasn’t a retarded dumbfuck and new what would happen with uncontrolled inflow of low skilled workers.”

                    What he knew was that the added competition would drive down wages, and that’s the thing that was bad for his union.

                    And for everybody else whose wages would be driven down, of course.

                    1. the added competition would drive down wages,

                      My point here, is if you actually read what he wrote, he didn’t oppose illegal immigration for some broad economic reason, he opposed it because farm labor employers would use illegal labor as strikebreakers, which was detrimental to his union. Illegal labor undercut his ability to collectively bargain. That is the long and short of it. Not for some supply-demand nonsense.

                  2. I cant stop laughing at you. Even after I posted below about his views.

              2. It is amazing watching you distort actual facts.

                Cesar Chavez was in fact against the import of low skilled labor due to the effects on low skilled labor that were citizens. It was an economic issue. He assaulted and harassed illegal immigrants often.

              3. “Chavez acolytes today try to explain away his hawkish pro-border views as coming from a different historical context, applicable only to specific strikes and the strike-breakers that farmers tried to import. But this is false.

                In fact, even before he started the union and fought against illegal immigration, he was opposed to the bracero program, which legally imported cheap, disposable labor from Mexico at the expense of American citizens (of Mexican and other origins) who had been working in the fields. Pawel quotes Chavez as saying, “It looks almost impossible to start some effective program to get these people their jobs back from the braceros.”

                Congress ended the bracero program in 1964, and the next 15 years were the salad days, as it were, for farmworkers — until illegal immigration became so pervasive (despite Chavez’s efforts) that workers lost all bargaining power.

                But during those 15 years, Chavez fought illegal immigration tenaciously. In 1969, he marched to the Mexican border to protest farmers’ use of illegal aliens as strikebreakers. He was joined by Reverend Ralph Abernathy and Senator Walter Mondale.”

                https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/cesar-chavez-illegal-immigration-foe/

                1. Chavez also had a mixed record in his dealings with undocumented workers — those who crossed the border illegally or stayed in the United States without authorization.

                  Today, between 50 and 70 percent of U.S. farmworkers are unauthorized, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Union officials say it’s the result of a system of labor recruitment that uses third-party contractors, and that few farmworkers today are unionized.

                  The UFW’s decline was largely the result of decisions made by Chavez, said Matthew Garcia, a history professor at Dartmouth College and author of From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement.

                  Garcia recalls the efforts of Chavez’s cousin Manuel to create a vigilante line with UFW members near the Mexican border in Arizona, a so-called “wet line,” to block the entry of illegal migrants in the 1970s.

                  He said Chavez was a man of his times, not one who rose above them, and that he “saw undocumented workers as an impediment to organizing an effective union.”

                  Not so, said Chavez’s son Paul, a one-time UFW organizer, negotiator and lobbyist, and now chairman of the Cesar Chavez Foundation. He said his father was opposed to illegal strikebreakers, but accepted union members without the requirement that they be legal residents.

                  “It’s always been, ‘You represent who works in the fields.’ And so, no, there never has been and never will be” (the need for legal residency).

                  https://www.voanews.com/usa/cesar-chavez-day-legacy-labor-immigration

                  Either way you look at it, Chavez was mostly concerned about illegal immigration and its impact on his union. Either he was opposed to it because they wouldn’t join his union, or because the illegal labor were used as strikebreakers (according to Garcia), or he was tolerant of illegal labor only insofar as they would join his union (according to his son).

                  EITHER WAY, it was not some broad principled concern about the effects of illegal labor on the plight of domestic workers generally. His concerns were narrow and parochial, centering on the effects it had on his union.

                  1. How dense are you? He knew it was bad for all workers. Not just his specific union. He knew this because he understood basic economics and understood what happens with the importation of unskilled labor in excess of demand, it drives wages downwards and causes worker exploitation. We already know you dont give 2 shots about the low skilled class based on you laughing at chinese workers.

                    Nothing you have said is a refutation if what I wrote. In fact it further entrenched what I wrote but you are too dense to understand that.

                    1. He knew it was bad for all workers. Not just his specific union. He knew this because he understood basic economics and understood what happens with the importation of unskilled labor in excess of demand, it drives wages downwards and causes worker exploitation.

                      He knew it was bad for his union, and he believed unionization was good for workers. This is not equivalent to believing that he believed illegal immigration per se was bad.

                      Furthermore, there is NO EVIDENCE that he opposed illegal immigration on broad economic grounds as you are positing. That is YOUR reason to oppose it, not HIS. Stop trying to stuff words into a dead man’s mouth.

                      You are reading way too much into his words, because it fits your narrative.

                      I quote his OWN FUCKING BROTHER for heaven’s sake. What do you do? Quote Mark Krikorian.

              4. Hey Chemjeff, put your respirator back on and stop huffing. I’ll attribute your intellectual dishonesty to that and give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your half-truth bullshit.

                Amnesty came with an enforcement mechanism called the Simpson-Mazzoli Act that was disregarded by succeeding administrations.

                “The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA or the Simpson–Mazzoli Act) was passed by the 99th United States Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986.

                The Immigration Reform and Control Act altered U.S. immigration law, making it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants and establishing financial and other penalties for companies that employed illegal immigrants. The act also legalized most illegal immigrants who had arrived in the country prior to January 1, 1982.” -wiki

          2. By the way, here is how racist you are.

            You believe every brown person supports illegal immigration solely based on them being a minority. That is beyond racist to believe. You have literally stated the only people against illegal immigration are white supremacists yet you ignore influential latino figures like Cesar Chavez. That is how racist you are. You think all minorities are as dumb as you are.

            1. To clarify for Old Dumb Mexican:

              As recently as 2014 over 70% of latinos supported strong borders and immigration enforcement.

              “According to a survey by Pew, nearly 70 percent of Latinos supported increased enforcement of immigration laws even before the increased attention to border issues this year. ”

              http://thelibreinitiative.com/press/latinos-consistently-supportive-immigration-enforcement

              The numbers have gone down recently, but well over half of latinos still support immigration enforcement.

              1. “Race also played a factor in Trump’s job approval rating. Hispanics, this time around, were much more likely to approve of his job performance (49% approve/51% disapprove), while the president also saw his numbers jump with African Americans. This was his second straight poll with over a quarter support from African Americans (28% approve/70% disapprove). If Trump wins half of Hispanics and a quarter of African Americans in 2020, Democrats will be in trouble!”

                https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/zogby-poor-performances-of-democrats-boost-trumps-approval-to-51-up-with-blacks-hispanics

                Lol.

          3. ” I’ve been civil most of the time,”

            ????

            Ahahahaha the so have I you WHihny fuck lololo

      3. People from around the world moved to the US because they preferred a society resulting from American culture more than the society resulting from their own culture.

        Why is it racist for Americans to also prefer a society resulting from American culture?

        Countries are people. When people immigrate, their culture comes with them.

        Immigration without assimilation is invasion and colonization.

        1. When people immigrate, their culture comes with them.

          Which is why, when all those refugees from Nazi Germany emigrated here in the 1930’s, they demanded national socialism. Right? Right?

          1. Which is why, when all those refugees from Nazi Germany emigrated here in the 1930’s, they demanded national socialism. Right? Right?

            The US has more illegals coming in per day from Mexico than came in from Nazi Germany in a year.

            And, yes, the wave of emigration from Europe laid the groundwork for the takeover of US universities by authoritarian and Frankfurt school types; they have instilled their hatred for capitalism and liberalism in American’s youth ever since.

            1. +1000

              Many of those Europeans who emigrated during the 1930s spied for socialist nations and even started the Nazi Bund.

            2. Wait. You actually believe that immigrants fleeing Nazi persecution were actually pro-Nazi themselves? This is beyond retarded.

              I’m responding to buybuy’s inane characterization of people as having no more significant of an identity than some vague allusion to some culture from which they came.

              People are individuals who deserve to be treated as individuals, and not rejected because some bureaucrat stereotyped them as one of “those people” based only on examining their countries of origin.

              1. “Wait. You actually believe that immigrants fleeing Nazi persecution were actually pro-Nazi themselves? This is beyond retarded.”

                Yes and Yes it is!! But no matter how retarded it is — it doesn’t change the fact that most (by a 75% margin) vote for Nazi (National Socialist) policy.

                You must realize that those people are in fact somewhat retarded in the aspect they voted in a situation and then remain completely ignorant and live in denial that their political beliefs is at least somewhat the problem that produced the issues.

                Just like the Democrats here who compulsively vote for “free” stuff then find the gal to complain they have to work twice as hard for less pay to MAKE the “free” stuff.

                Retarded? Pretty much…

      4. so then you think the laws should definitely be changed to tighten the asylum thing?..got it

      5. By the way, Trump wasn’t elected to really enforce immigration laws, otherwise he would enforce the current immigration law that exist pertaining to asylum seekers who are applying for asylum at ports of entry LEGALLY yet being denied entry by Trump’s goons which is actually quote ILLEGAL.

        Wrong. Asylum seekers are required to seek asylum in the first safe country they pass through. Mexico is a safe country in the sense of asylum law.

  2. somebody get Dara an iron.

  3. Is Suderman sporting a comb-over? Silly white person.

    1. My dad had a comb-over. Seeing it I swore a sacred oath never to do something that silly looking, one I have been faithful to, to this day.

      Instead I let my wife use a buzz cutter on me monthly, same one we use on the dog.

      1. “…same one we use on the dog.”

        Has the dog caught anything yet? 😉

  4. left young children separated from their parents…

    You do realize that if you are a parent and you are arrested for any crime, you will be separated from your child, correct? Unless you want your child to accompany you to your jail cell?

    1. ──”You do realize that if you are a parent and you are arrested for any crime, you will be separated from your child, correct?”──

      What ***CRIME*** did these folks commit, other than the made-up “crime” of not having the proper documentation requested by the State? Fuck you! You lousy motherlovin’ Statist. Those children didn’t deserve to have their parents kidnapped by the State.

      God, the arguments coming from these bigots! Can’t you come up with something even LESS original?

      1. So laws on the books are now made up crimes.

        You say very very stupid things.

        1. Hello, JesseAz,
          ──”So laws on the books are now made up crimes.”──

          Like jay walking for instance. Or selling fuck.

          Moron.

          1. Jay Walking is a crime. It is on the books. It is the literal definition of a non made up crime dipshit.

            How stupid are you?

            You can say you disagree with the crime, but it isn’t made up. It is in your criminal books.

            This is why I keep telling you that you are devoid of logic.

          2. Nothing you need to worry about you fucking foreigner. Stay out.

        2. So laws on the books are now made up crimes.

          Look up the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

          1. So laws against things like smoking pot, and being in the country without the correct papers, are mala prohibita. These actions don’t violate anyone’s rights, they are illegal only because the law declares them to be illegal.

            Libertarians as a rule are opposed to mala prohibita type laws, because libertarians as a rule support violations of the NAP as the only legitimate basis for the creation of law. If a person participates in some action that does not constitute an act of aggression against anyone, why should that action or behavior be criminalized?

            So from a libertarian perspective, crimes that are the result of breaking mala prohibita laws, are “imaginary crimes”. No one’s rights were violated, so they ought not be regarded as crimes at all.

            1. This has all been a explained to you a hundred times over. So now you can fuck off back to Toronto.

              Also, two illegals raped an 11 year old American girl.

              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/14/sanctuary-county-two-illegal-aliens-accused-of-raping-11-year-old-girl/

              Pedo Jeffy approves!

            2. Why do you keep trying to knock down strawman arguments I never made jeffrey?

              1. I’m trying to explain basic concepts to you. Perhaps if you would read something other than Breitbart you might learn something.

            3. Laws against smoking pot are mala prohibita.

              The debate is open on illegal border crossing.

              No matter how often you and yours shriek that the issue is settled.

              Which is where OM’s severe cognitive deterioration comes in.

              You refuse to allow that someone might hold a position that isn’t “brown people bad”

              You refuse to debate. You refuse to enter into a functional conversation.

              Even when an exchange happens, no matter what is said, you all revert to crying ‘racism’.

              1. Laws against smoking pot are mala prohibita.

                The debate is open on illegal border crossing.

                Which is, like a law against smoking pot, an instance of malum prohibitum.

                The entire rest of your screed is just appeal to authority and whining.

                Nowhere in this discussion at all did I call anyone a racist. But you sure know how to play the victim card, even when you’re an imaginary victim, right?

            4. “…libertarians as a rule support violations of the NAP as the only legitimate basis for the creation of law.”

              Nothing could be more aggressive than invading a place that has told you that you may not be there.
              Illegal invaders violate the NAP, with each breath.
              Why do you support such anti-libertarian actions?

              1. Yes. Because crossing an arbitrary, politically-created, “line in the sand” is a violent act. Please……

      2. What crime did they commit other than the crime they committed?

        Whoa, that’s a brilliant question.

      3. What ***CRIME*** did these folks commit, other than the made-up “crime” of not having the proper documentation requested by the State?

        That’s the crime. If you don’t like it, have it changed. But you don’t get to unilaterally decide that some people can ignore laws because they are inconvenient.

        Those children didn’t deserve to have their parents kidnapped by the State.

        If they didn’t commit any additional crimes, they and their children can leave any time they want. If they stay separated from their children, it’s by choice.

  5. Why the constant inability to distinguish between legal, authorized, immigration and illegal immigration? You truly can be against the second and in favor of the first. Maybe it is sort of like saying you are against rape and therefore against sex altogether.
    I believe even Trump knows his wife is an immigrant.

    1. ──”Why the constant inability to distinguish between legal, authorized, immigration and illegal immigration? You truly can be against the second and in favor of the first.” ──

      You can perfectly be in favor of BOTH if one is the result of a State-created fiction, just like I can be consistent and be for legal sex (free) and prostitution (paid fuck). Instead it is motherlovin STATISTS like you who prefer to defer to the State and on a oh-so-convenient case which is immigration, not unlike the OTHER Statists who call for their favorite prohibitions like gun control, while making the same level of sense which is NONE. So FUCK YOU.

      1. And he bats 3 for 3. Perfect outing of stupidity for OM.

          1. It amuses me that you keep reinforcing my original statement above.

            Still praying for you.

          2. Ah, you’re a credit to Mexican immigrants. Are you legal or illegal, by the way?

      2. I am a member of the Rock Creek Yakima. So maybe immigration is a concern of mine.

      3. Wow how could anyone not want more people who come here and ignore the law lololol

      4. You can perfectly be in favor of BOTH if one is the result of a State-created fiction,

        You can be in favor of whatever you want to. But nobody made you king and you don’t get to pick and choose what laws you or others get to obey: if you want the laws to change, you have to go through the democratic process to change them.

        So FUCK YOU.

        The feeling is mutual.

      5. So, all those laws, passed by Congress, regarding how one may obtain residency and citizenship, when coming as a citizen of a foreign nation are fiction?
        You’d better let the people, who print up the US Code, know about this.
        They’re wasting a lot of paper on things that were made up by us “bigots”.

        P.S. You keep using that word. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    2. Why the constant inability to distinguish between legal, authorized, immigration and illegal immigration?

      To distinguish between the two, implicitly acknowledges that the law itself is valid and just.

      1. Hello, Chem!

        Don’t waste your time with them. These WSs get off om seeing human cruelty inflicted on defenseless brown people “in the name of the law” so of course they would argue these laws are valid. It’s just circular thinking but they won’t care because it’s like their porn.

        1. Is that made up laws that are passed by a legislature?

        2. Old Mexican – Mostly Worthless

          “…om (om-freudian slip) seeing human cruelty inflicted on defenseless brown people, by other brown people they paid, before the defenseless brown people hit the Rio Grande. ” FTFY

        3. These WSs get off om seeing human cruelty inflicted on defenseless brown people “in the name of the law”

          It’s very easy not to have cruelty inflicted on you by the US immigration system: don’t come to the US illegally. See how that works?

      2. To distinguish between the two, implicitly acknowledges that the law itself is valid and just.

        In other words, instead of going through the democratic process and having the law changed, you just want law enforcement based on mob rule. Got it.

        1. “…you just want law enforcement based on mob rule.”
          Based on polling data, the “mob” that is in favor of illegal immigration, is be pretty small, even when legal “brown” people are asked.
          Old Mexican – Mostly Obnoxious is in a minority, within his own group, assuming he is here within the law.

  6. Anyone who opposes the Koch / Reason open borders agenda is, by definition, an alt-right white nationalist. Thus, Drumpf’s draconian war on immigration is easy to understand — it’s motivated entirely by racism.

    The alt-right may have “won” the 2016 election because Russia intervened on their behalf. But their days are numbered. Polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” This proves open borders is now a mainstream idea. Indeed, prominent Democrats are now talking about immigration in a way that’s virtually indistinguishable from Koch-funded writers.

    #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
    #AbolishConcentrationCamps

    1. OBL says, ” Polls show more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.”

      Proving once again that only an intellectually dishonest POS would conflate legal and illegal immigration.

  7. This not hard rocket science here = understand immigration raids.

    ICE agent asks: Are you legally in this country?
    Illegal alien answer: No.
    ICE agent: You are under arrest. You will be taken to a detention center where you will receive free medical care, three meals a day, fresh clothes, an attorney, and any other mandated freebies by some hare-brained Federal judge. Then you’ll be released and you show up for your hearing that is about in 14 months.
    Illegal Alien answer: Can I get an Obamaphone with that, por favor?

    Is this really all that hard?

    1. Did you get a hard-on after seeing that little girl crying for her father? I bet you did. Or maybe: It wasn’t all that hard.

      Fuck you!

      1. Oh, I see my arrow hit home. 🙂

        1. I’m praying for his agonizing death. It’s all gone too far and now it’s time for shit to get real. So accounts can be settled.

          No more progtards anymore.

          1. Last….no need to wish that on anyone. Just let them stew and be miserable. That is worse punishment. Like I said, my arrow stuck home. 🙂

      2. Did you get a hard-on after seeing that little girl crying for her father?

        Her father must be a monster to subject her to this.

        Kind of like you are a monster advocating that this is how kids ought to be treated by their parents.

    2. an attorney

      This part is not true. There is no right to an attorney in immigration court. Because it’s not an Article III court, it’s an “administrative court”.

      Sometimes illegal immigrants don’t even get a court hearing at all, not even in an administrative court.

      1. Good, it saves money.

      2. Well I am actually glad to hear that = they neither get an attorney nor a hearing.

        Just deport their asses out of the country. Use the legal process to come here. It is not unreasonable to ask that our laws be respected.

        1. How do you know if they’re illegally in the country unless there’s a hearing? Or, you know, something resembling due process?

          1. How do you know if they’re illegally in the country unless there’s a hearing?

            Well, lucky you that the law has had an answer to that question for more than half a century: all non-citizens are required by US law to carry documentation at all times. That way, legal presence can be determined quickly.

            1. all non-citizens are required by US law to carry documentation at all times.

              This doesn’t really answer the question though. How is an ICE agent supposed to know if a particular individual is either (a) an illegal immigrant who has no papers, or (b) a citizen who simply doesn’t have his papers on hand, because he’s not required to have them in the first place?

              This is how you get issues like the Texas kid who was detained for a month even though he is a citizen because ICE wouldn’t believe his documentation.

              Furthermore, a legal immigrant who happens not to have his papers on hand, is nonetheless a LEGAL immigrant. Shouldn’t this person get the opportunity to prove to some magistrate that yes, he is a legal immigrant?

      3. Illegal immigrants don’t need attorneys, they need a ride out of the country.

        1. Have you heard of this concept called due process?

          1. Due process applies to criminal and civil law; it does not apply to immigration or deportation issues.

            Expedited removal is the law and has been affirmed as constitutional by the courts.

            1. Not true – the Fifth Amendment applies even to illegal immigrants.

              “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” — Justice Scalia

              https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

              1. Scalia was wrong about quite a fee things.

                He felt the 2A is not an absolute right to keep and bear Arms protection.

                1. Any time a court, even the Supreme one, says that the Constitution allies to anyone other than “We the People of the United States” is wrong.
                  Citizens and legal residents, only – and that second part is tenuous.

                  1. Right — The fact is the 14th Amendment was passed to verify/validate who the Constitution considered “The People”. It was defined as “U.S. Citizens”. This should be common-sense.

  8. The enjoyment of human suffering and of acts of cruelty committed towards innocent people whose skins are brown is what drives the motivations of these white supremacists an their dear leaders in the WH. They are right now fapping over the pictures of that crying girl, begging the all-mighty State to release her father to her and her family.

    Did you get pleasure from that, you moronic white supremacists? I bet you did. You have the sticky fingers to prove it. Fuck you. You WILL be replaced by moral, hard-working and honest people of all hues and origins. You can all go to hell, you racist motherlovers. The gloves are off. See you all in the field of combat.

    1. Very well said.

      Make sure to sign the MoveOn impeachment petition if you haven’t already.

      #Impeach
      #Resist

    2. How did you go so many posts without one idiom of actual logic?

    3. Your emotional arguments are noted and rejected, you may have better luck over at Vox or wherever progressive women hang out, they love emotional drivel.

      “The gloves are off. See you all in the field of combat”

      Lol this mo fucker is going to show up in a scooter swinging a pinata… have fun out there homes I’ll be directing a drone into your ear hole

    4. The enjoyment of human suffering and of acts of cruelty committed towards innocent people whose skins are brown is what happens in Mexico, Guatamala, Honduras,etc.,etc. every single fucking day.

    5. Someone forgot to take their alpha-galactosidase today.

    6. “The gloves are off. See you all in the field of combat.”

      Good. It’s time to reduce your numbers, preferably to zero. So now all you antigun 130 lb. soyboys can learn an important lesson in your last moments before you expire.

      No more mercy for the progtarded. You want a real fight? Ok. Feel free to choke our rivers with your dead.

    7. The gloves are off. See you all in the field of combat.

      Please, please, please, please!

      I want this shit over with already.

      When you and yours are finally moldering under a warning marker that puts the end to leftism once and for all it won’t be soon enough.

      You used to post great things, OM, but as collectivism ate your brain you devolved to brown people this and brown people that, and brown people uber alles. Por La Raza, todo, eh OM?

      So this needs to get going.

      1. OM outed himself as a La Raza sympathist a long time ago, he’s just now making his full solidarity clear by parroting the “demographic replacement” meme that Democrats have been pimping for the last 18 years or so.

        1. and as you guys reminded us in Charlottesville with tiki torches, you will not be replaced.

          1. My skin’s browner than yours, Mary.

            1. i would ask that you not take about your brown-eye here.

              1. I’d ask that you leave your personal fantasies out of this.

                1. no fantasies, i assure you. Just please don’t reference your body again. We don’t want to hear about it.

                  1. You brought up a total stranger’s ass unprompted. I don’t blame you for wanting to get dominated by a beautiful, brown-skinned person, through.

    8. It’s Angry OBL.

    9. Old Mexican’s racist rants are getting tiresome.

    10. That family you are crying about can easily be reunited…BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
      And, to answer your racialist rant – the same thing would happen if the family was from Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Denmarketc, etc,etc…
      It’s got nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has to do with this nation being one of the rule of law.
      Take your anarchist ass somewhere that doesn’t believe in that.
      I hear Somalia has lots of people of color and no laws to speak of.

  9. These writers have the reasoning skills of a child. Or maybe they are habitual liars. These aren’t in any shape or firm “Trump” raids. It is called immigration law enforcement and has been enforced under every administration in my lifetime. Shut the fuck up.

    1. [citations missing]
      [context missing]

      1. At least you provided a self-aware post this time, Toby.

        1. hi again, trashley. Question – do you guys ever have any substantive discussions here? or is just all “progtard this and that, down with leftists, and own the libs?”

          1. Hi yourself, Mary. Question–“progtard this and that, down with leftists, and own the libs?” isn’t substantive?

            1. cute. onward, christian soldier!

              1. Who’s Christian?

                1. christians are.

                  1. Are Christians?

  10. why is reason’s comment section dominated by a bunch of alt-right trash? where are the libertarians? I literally just read a comment where someone used the word “progtard,” and thought it was clever. cringe. has it always been like this?

      1. is this another one of your white trash, inside circle (jerk) references?

        1. Well, if anyone would know about white trash, it’s Mary. It’s called a mirror.

          1. whoah, i see what you did there. Who’s Mary? Can’t you guys go hang out at a site for the alt-right? Is 8chan still down?

            1. Nah, we’ll stick around here.

              1. i mean, if my views were abhorred by the majority of respectable society, i wouldn’t want to give up my safe space with my alt-right pals either. totally understandable.

                1. So you have a lot of experience, then.

                  1. haha, you love that “i know you are, but what am i?” response. classic trashley. until next time.

                    1. Not nearly as predictable as the go-to “trashly” remark. Classic Mary.

                2. Got news for you.
                  The majority of Americans, in almost every poll, agree with those of us, who don’t want illegal aliens to come to this country.
                  So, the canard that we have views that are “abhorred by the majority of respectable society” are just that, complete bullshit.
                  Libertarians, in this country, believe in the powers that the Constitution granted to the Congress.
                  Anyone, who doesn’t, isn’t a libertarian, just another anarchist.

    1. It’s been like this for about 5 years now, unfortunately.

  11. This raid is exactly how the law was intended to work. The second amnesty was a promise – everyone here right now gets a free pass, but from now on we’ll make sure this doesn’t happen again. To do that we will make sure that every employer has to ensure the citizenship or work visa status of every employee.

    That was the deal. No illegal immigration if there are no jobs for illegal immigrants. Simple, really.

    So every job you’ve ever taken, you have to have your forms of ID and proof of citizenship stuff (or proper visa status).

    So, either these employers were breaking the law – which should be pretty easy to establish, or the employees were breaking multiple laws – illegal entry, illegal work, forged documents, etc.

    Now, we all know that the amnesty bargain was a lie. Everyone who wasn’t in on the deal said so at the time.

    And here we are. We don’t have a work visa process – even though Bush II offered up a decent proposal that democrats should have jumped at. Why is that? Why do you suppose that the Democrats and Republicans agree that we should have no real path to come here for work in the numbers that demand suggests are needed? Why do you suppose that the democrats are adamant that enforcing existing law (signed into law by a democrat) is racist?

    Why do you suppose that “immigrant rights” activists fight hard to keep immigration illegal and enforcement absent?

    Nobody seems to want to fix things – which would mean having a legal way to get 10-30 million new workers into the country, either as immigrant citizens to be, or as guest workers. No, everyone left and right wants them to come here and work illegally.

    Why would they want that? Nobody makes speeches and shouts “I demand more people come here as an underclass that has to work illegally, hence losing much of the protection that they should have as workers and legal residents!” But every single one of them votes that way. Every activist advocates that way. Why?

    I have a guess. And it ain’t got nothing to do with racism, opposing racism, loving or hating latinos or any such nonsense.

    1. Regardless of your sentiments about immigrants, it is unlibertarian to coerce individuals to enforce the law. Asking employers to enforce immigration law, instead of the police, is no different from a military draft, in principle. We pay taxes so the authorities do their jobs, they should not outsource their work to the individuals in society.

      1. Is that the same with all the other labor laws?
        Should the government have to screen all people who want to apply for a job? Or make sure that someone, who works more than a 40 hour week gets overtime? Or see that everyone, who is employed in a hazardous profession, have all the safety equipment on hand, before they begin their tasks?
        Yeah, that argument is just stupid.

  12. Reason hooks up with ProCommunistia. LOL..wow

  13. Don’t need to watch a hard leftist like Dara Lind lecture me on immigration. She should move to Guatemala.

  14. the over affected, serious dara face is humorous

  15. if these south and central American immigrants legal and illegal plus first couple of generations all suddenly voted republican, none of these Leftists would give a damn about them

    1. calm down, Cletus. Is Matlock over, then?

      1. oh stop your affectation, dullard…you are embarrassing yourself…try an argument next time

    2. if these south and central American immigrants legal and illegal plus first couple of generations all suddenly voted republican, none of these Leftists would give a damn about them
      My Ass!
      Leftists would be lining up to make a human wall at the border.
      The only reason they want this invasion is because they need a new electorate to replace real Americans, who have gotten wise to the left’s totalitarian impulses.
      0blama in 2008 – 52.86%
      0blama in 2012 – 51.01%
      HiLIARy in 2016 – 48.02%

  16. Não compreendi muito o artigo, fiquei confusa kkkk

  17. I am glad to finally see a small number of workplace raids. Shouldn’t even be necessary due to rigorous pre-hiring rules, but whatever works now.

  18. This is enoug for me to Earn money at home on laptop ,Just work on laptop 4 to 6 hour par day and Make 50 Dollar Easily This is very nyc for me and my family…..

    Check It Here….

    =====>>>> Here is More information <<<<=====

  19. Illegal Immigrant, “I bought a nice house in my country. Supported policy that gave me free meals, never kill a fly/rat, invited everyone into my house. Looked the other way while criminals stole my stuff. Avoided upgrading my house. Now my house if full of flies, rats and crime.”

    “So, I decided to move and break into my neighbors nicer house. He was always busy defending his Constitutional home. When he told me to get the *#@! out of his house and take my flies/rats and criminals with me. I called him a racist pig.”

    The End.

  20. I can’t see anything but signs of racism when I read about Trump’s policy…shit!
    یلینک

  21. Fiquei de cara quando li essa noticia na tv, parabens por escrever esse artigo tão bem explicado e informativo, blog de qualidade!!

    Eu tenho um, mas claro que não chega aos pé do de vocês, mas estou começando, vou deixar aqui para quem quiser ver:
    https://rendadevendas.com/

Please to post comments