The Border Czar

[Valerie]

You have to watch the whole thing to get the clear understanding

Not sure why your video was shut down.
Here is another one. Yes, there is family separation.
There also is sex trafficking, rapes, people cooked in trailers, all very cruel.
https://www.youtube

It’s beastly to create policies that TEMPT the vulnerable to risk life+limb to break laws, including disrespect of national borders. How many reading-posting on this forum could imagine disrespecting ANY national border? Anyone?

As long as crimes are rewarded, crimes will not end.
i pray i never have to face such ugly temptation, i’m not sure i could resist it. i pray i could and would resist it.
Please. No one tempt me with promises of rewards for myself and my family, if only i’m willing to risk our lives and break laws.

That would be a form of torture i’m not sure i could endure.

Those creating such temptations (Congress+POTUS, etc.) should be held complicit along with the violators.

AMALA EKPUNOBI is a young conservative woman i’m enjoying on the internet.
Youthful, learning, thankfully, she doesn’t resort to a baby talk voice when speaking.

Amala points out TOM HOMAN was employed durng the obama administration (5:30 mark). He has broad experience.

“Trump’s New Border Czar Is NOT Messing Around” / 17min


Msm has failed to report balanced news. Now they lose.
Maybe young conservatives will get some airtime in future? That would be quite a change, eh?

No wonder you are following her, she has more insight & wisdom to understand the big picture that the country has finally woken up to!
She should run against AOC!!

[Bootstrap]

Right. It was cruel and unnecessary. The standard policy of keeping families together is not only more humane, it even was less expensive than keeping kids in separate tent cities (not that it should matter, but it just highlights that it wasn't necessary for it from any angle, other than to be harsh and vindictive).

They could have detained and deported people without being this cruel. We do need to be able to enforce immigration. But not like this.

Thousands of children still have not been able to find their parents. Intentional cruelty to children is especially alarming. They called this a "consequence", saying that their cruelty to families and children would discourage illegal immigration. This is not right.

The law says minors be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and special needs and mandates their prompt release to parents, legal guardians, or other qualified adults. Under the “Zero Tolerance” policy, children were separated from their parents even when their parents were present and seeking asylum. They were treated as "unaccompanied" even when they arrived with their parents and were taken from them. Under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, children were placed in detention centers, or even tent cities. The law says children who are detained need access to recreational, educational, and social programs.

Some of these families had entered the country legally. Very few were accused of any crime except for illegal entry. There was no need to break these families up. If we believe in family values ... shouldn't we value families and children?

And then they say they had no choice. When they make the decisions, they need to take responsibility for their choices.

[Valerie]

Right. It was cruel and unnecessary. The standard policy of keeping families together is not only more humane, it even was less expensive than keeping kids in separate tent cities (not that it should matter, but it just highlights that it wasn't necessary for it from any angle, other than to be harsh and vindictive).

They could have detained and deported people without being this cruel. We do need to be able to enforce immigration. But not like this.

Thousands of children still have not been able to find their parents. Intentional cruelty to children is especially alarming. They called this a "consequence", saying that their cruelty to families and children would discourage illegal immigration. This is not right.

The law says minors be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and special needs and mandates their prompt release to parents, legal guardians, or other qualified adults. Under the “Zero Tolerance” policy, children were separated from their parents even when their parents were present and seeking asylum. They were treated as "unaccompanied" even when they arrived with their parents and were taken from them. Under the "Zero Tolerance" policy, children were placed in detention centers, or even tent cities. The law says children who are detained need access to recreational, educational, and social programs.

Some of these families had entered the country legally. Very few were accused of any crime except for illegal entry. There was no need to break these families up. If we believe in family values ... shouldn't we value families and children?

And then they say they had no choice. When they make the decisions, they need to take responsibility for their choices.

There have been thousands of children unaccounted for under THIS administration.

Parents need to not put their own children at risk. Parents can be cruel. Many of these children weren't even with their own parents. Children can leave with their own parents and come in legally & learn to abide by laws.

[Bootstrap]

And then they say they had no choice. When they make the decisions, they need to take responsibility for their choices.

There have been thousands of children unaccounted for under THIS administration.

Can you say more about what you are talking about? As far as I know, there were child separations before and after the Trump Administration, but they usually involved parents charged with a serious crime, children who were not safe in their families, or errors. They were not intentional. And I don't know anything about thousands of children who are not accounted for. If that's true, it's bad.

I think intentional cruelty to children and to families is bad, no matter who is doing it. And it's worse when it is done theatrically to make a point. When excusing or applauding this kind of cruelty becomes an everyday part of American politics, that really concerns me.

Parents need to not put their own children at risk. Parents can be cruel. Many of these children weren't even with their own parents. Children can leave with their own parents and come in legally & learn to abide by laws.

No, children were not able to leave with their own parents. That's the problem. They separated families, held people in cruel conditions, and did not keep records to allow families to be brought together again. Suppose it were you. Suppose you were fleeing violence or poverty and you came to this country, hoping for a better life for your family. They seize you, take away your children, and you never see them again. They hold you and your children in inhumane conditions. And some people applaud. They know or should know what is going on. This cruelty is in plain sight.

Families should have an opportunity to have their asylum claims heard, and they should be able to stay together and leave together if they are deported. If they need to be detained, they should be detained in humane conditions.

[JohnH]

Can't they make an asylum claim at a port of entry.

[Bootstrap]

Can't they make an asylum claim at a port of entry.

That's how it should work. But it's not how it does work.

U.S. law says that individuals physically present in the United States or arriving at a port of entry, regardless of their legal status, can apply for asylum. But we have set up a process called "metering", which means only a certain number of people are allowed to make a claim every day, and the backlog gets longer and longer because we do not hire enough judges to hear the claims. The simple solution, I think, is to hire enough judges.

And the camps where they have had to wait in Mexico have been really kind of horrible - unsafe, unclean, and squalid. They were also infiltrated by the same gangs some of these families were fleeing. If we want them to stay in Mexico while they wait, we need to find some way to provide humane, safe places for them to wait. If we want to admit them while they wait, we need to make sure that is humane and safe too.

[Ken]

Can't they make an asylum claim at a port of entry.

Sure.

All it would take is staffing up enough immigration courts and hearings officers to hear such claims. Call your Congressman.

[Jazman]

Can't they make an asylum claim at a port of entry.

Sure.

All it would take is staffing up enough immigration courts and hearings officers to hear such claims. Call your Congressman.

Yes, but if he's a Trump loyalist, your call might go through one ear and out the other...

[barnhart]

Can't they make an asylum claim at a port of entry.

Sure.

All it would take is staffing up enough immigration courts and hearings officers to hear such claims. Call your Congressman.

And the years long wait for court hearings could easily be managed by funding and staffing up. But for that to happen, congress must come to the conviction there is no more election/fundraising advantage to the current situation and allocate the funds.

[Jazman]

I caught bits of this last Saturday... I think it's a nice counter to the MAGA-way-to-deal-with-immigrants media that this thread is hosting so far...
This is the Cake We Baked - This American Life

Some passages from the interview with a higher up in ICE / DHS off/on since 9/11, "mostly in enforcement"... I've bolded some things that, well, land like blows...

Jason Houser - "You're going to see kids not in your schools. You're going to know where they're at because they're waiting in a detention cell and they have cell phones. You're going to see it in social media. You're going to see businesses not be able to open up because their workers didn't show up. You're going to see businesses being raided. And it's going to become more intimate."

"Nadia: One of the things ICE would have to work around is which nationalities to deport first-- you know, if you wanted to make the most impact. A lot of countries don't take their own people back. Venezuela, for example, hardly accepts any immigrants back. Brazil only accepts two to four flights of immigrants a month.

Nadia Reiman
So who are the first people who would be deported, like, in the first hundred days?

Jason Houser
Haitians and Guatemalans."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Houser "But if I'm in this scenario where I'm the head of ICE for Trump, all the rules of engagement and policies are out the window. Why not load up a few planeloads of Cuban nationals and send them to the Bahamas and just send them to a third party? Why not just-- I could go find a country that says they'll accept three or four planeloads of Cuban nationals, and I'll send them to a third-party country."

Jason Houser "Well, I think it would be very easy to focus on industries that have large numbers and high numbers of migrants working within them. What would stop them from going into a meat processing plant in Virginia? Say there's a couple hundred migrants. There's 80 on shift that day. You go in, you know there's one individual there that has a final order of removal, maybe has a nonviolent criminal background.

You go in, you do the raid, you line all the workers up, and you start checking status of each and every one of them, right? Or maybe you just arrest them all, bring them into detention, and then do the checks to see who is removable. There's nothing that could stop ICE, at that point, from just bringing people into custody, detaining them, and then figuring out who is removable at that time.

Nadia Reiman
Tom Homan has not denied this, by the way. He's said publicly something like this would be necessary. Homan also said he would do national security threats first-- but then raids, sure. Jason says the raids under a 2.0 Trump administration could be more militarized, with SWAT-style teams. That's not how they've been done in the past. He also told me he thinks nothing would stop ICE from going into hospitals or schools or churches. Normally, ICE doesn't do that. But this is just a policy, not a law."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Houser - Well, they're not just, like, Coleman tents that you would get to go camping. But what I'm saying is-- but the problem here is, those Afghanis were coming to safety. Now, you're saying, I'm going to bring on a soft-side tent to hold people so I can remove them in, like, 90 days.

The idea that they're just going to, like-- OK, I'm going to live in this deplorable conditions and not cause unrest-- that's where it gets very dangerous.

Nadia Reiman
Dangerous because Jason thinks there would be fights, riots. People would be hurt, possibly even die, he thinks. And just so I'm clear here, yes, he means immigrants, but also officers. Jason's very concerned about the safety of the ICE officers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Reiman - At the end of the 100 days, how many people do you think will be gone?

Jason Houser
Let's just say this. Let's say all rules are out the-- and I can remove people that aren't removable. Like, I'm going to send them to third-party countries. ICE has 48,000 people in its custody now. ICE has 14 ICE planes that are hardened planes. They hold 135-- 135 souls. I need more of those. But while I'm sending those 48,000, I'm probably going to go out and bring another 50,000 to 100,000 into custody. So if you're talking 30 to 60 days, you could remove 150,000 to 200,000 people.

Nadia Reiman
So 200,000 people in the first 60 days?

Jason Houser
Yeah.

Nadia Reiman
So in the first 100, that puts you at what, how many?

Jason Houser
If all rules are gone and I can remove them anywhere, you could do a million.

Nadia Reiman
A million people. Of course, Jason's predicting here, assuming there will be no major roadblocks. But the Brennan Center did this thing where they stress tested with experts and government people whether mass deportations could be done, gamed this all out. In their simulations, funding was a big obstacle right away, so their deportation numbers weren't as large as Jason's.

But that was also assuming that the House wouldn't go Republican, which is looking like it will be as I record this. That would make Jason's math of a million people more possible. And when a million people disappear from the country, it's more than just bodies gone. There's ripple effects.

Jason Houser
One, we'll see massive inflation continue in this country, because we just pulled a million people out of our workforce-- GDP, businesses, small business especially. And then we'll see thousands of people losing their jobs and small businesses closing, et cetera.

Two, law enforcement activity-- federal specifically, and in cities and states where state and local law enforcement is supporting this mass deportation program-- will halt. Halt. Going out and arresting the rapist and murderer in your county will stop while your sheriff is over playing grabass with Homan and these individuals and trying to do some big mass deportation scheme and throwing Grandma back to Cuba. So law enforcement will be chilled.

Three, migrants will go deeper into the shadows. They will do the steps they need to stay in our country, because it's so much better than going back and risking death in another that they will hide even more into the shadows."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Reiman [responding to Jason's belief that there will be a pendulum swing...] - "I'm not so sure. I think it's way harder for the pendulum to swing back. If you look at the Democrats' immigration platform, what you see is the border bill that Biden tried to pass. That bill is the most restrictive immigration bill we've seen in years. It's a child born out of the Trump administration but also parented by the Democrats, making a harsh agenda seem way more middle of the road.

Think piece after think piece uses this failed bill as an example of how far to the right we've moved on immigration, how much enforcement and severity have taken over, how much the idea of a nation of immigrants is dusty and Pollyanna-ish. This fall, a Brookings poll said that about a third of Americans agree with Trump's quote, that undocumented immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country-- "poisoning the blood."

This phrase chills me. It's not about legality or order. It's visceral. It's guttural repulsion. It is a violent feeling about a massive group of people. And when the President is the one that leads it, it's not just a feeling anymore. It becomes an action."


I'd love to hear from anyone who is all for or sympathetic to any kind of "mass deportation" effort and after reading the show transcript, let us know what you think/feel? Be honest - if you want mass deportation and the resulting trickle down and unintended consequences, then root for that...If your confident it's right and good and the Christian thing to do, say so loud and proud... OR these consequences are news to you and you've never thought of them (or never been told or heard anyone in your media orbit discuss), admit that too.