Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (112) |
Author: Dope1   😊 😞
Number: of 84357 
Subject: Re: Oklahoma and Massachusetts
Date: 11/19/24 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
First, there's the obvious issue that these three groups aren't (by and large) the ones that have driven a lot of the news coverage leading up to the election.

Illegal alien criminals absolutely have driven the news coverage. But that's beside the point.
All 3 groups I mentioned have zero right to be here, and many of those folks are victimizing American citizens. If democrats want to stand in the way of them all being shown the door, I'm here for it.

But it will be a very visible problem for Trump if nothing happens to fix the problems caused by those folks. His Administration probably can't limit deportation just to the three groups you mentioned.

Trump is approaching this in a rational fashion, which is
1. ID the groups that need to go
2. Prioritize the worst of the worst and send them packing first
3. Then decide what to do about the flood of asylum seekers that are here

We're on Step 1.

While Miller and Homan might have some ideas about prioritizing their targets, they haven't made any statements that would limit the program to just these three groups.

They don't need to. They have a lot of folks to clear out just in the first 3.

And finally, any program that seeks to deport 1.4 million people is going to affect a far larger number of people. Directly, of course, the efforts to apprehend the 1.3 million folks under deportation orders are going to reveal a large number of people here illegally who haven't yet been ordered to leave.

And...?
The people I listed have zero right to be here.

There's no way to do a large-scale deportation without having large-scale impacts, especially in regions and industries where undocumented workers are concentrated. Personally, I think there's a non-trivial chance that Trump is unable to pull off the large-scale deportation, and will instead just have some very highly publicized efforts that don't end up moving a whole lot more people than have been moved historically. But if he does pull it off, it's going to have some dire economic effects.

I don't accept this, because it's the school of thought that says, "Let's just throw up our hands and let everyone stay". That's not acceptable, and also not sustainable in either the short or the long run.

You should check out what happened at the last Chicago City Council meeting with respect to immigration.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Dope1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (112) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community