Via Reuters: As Trump misses deportation goals, ICE pushes migrants to give up their cases.
Their case illustrates how U.S. President Donald Trump’s vast immigration crackdown is increasingly relying on threats to separate families and other aggressive tactics to pressure people into accepting deportation – even if they have submitted legal claims that in previous administrations would have allowed them to stay in the country, according to immigrants, attorneys, current and former officials and court records reviewed by Reuters.
These tactics include threats of jail sentences for resisting a deportation order or crossing the border illegally – crimes that previously were rarely prosecuted and would lead to separation from children – as well as prolonged detention with no opportunity to seek release and deportation to far-flung third countries, Reuters found.
Reuters spoke to 16 immigration attorneys, who collectively have hundreds of clients, and others with broad visibility into the Trump administration’s rising use of harsh tactics to force immigrants to accept deportations.
White House border czar Tom Homan defended the Trump administration’s approach.
“We’re using every tool in the toolbox,” Homan told Reuters in an interview. “Everything we’re doing is legal.”
The legal things being done include threatening to separate parents from their children, because, obviously, the most important thing here in a hierarchy of moral goods is deportations now, deportations tomorrow, and deportations forever.
Immigration advocates and other critics say the Vargases and others with potentially legitimate claims to stay in the United States are caught in what amounts to a numbers game. The Trump administration has said it aims to deport 1 million people per year, but is likely to fall short of that goal, given current trends.
DHS said in early December that Trump had deported more than 593,000 people since taking office, putting it on pace for fewer than 700,000 deportations by the year’s end.
As a general matter, it is morally problematic to use cruelty to meet quotas.
By the way, it does appear that the government is increasingly concentrating persons in various camps across the country by unleashing masked thugs on the populace. I wonder if there is a term for that?
Speaking of cruelty as policy, via Time, ‘I Was at the Finish Line’: People Are Being Turned Away From Their Citizenship Ceremonies in Trump’s New Immigration Crackdown.
Jane was one month away from her naturalization ceremony, the day she would swear the Oath of Allegiance to the United States and become a citizen. It would mark the end of her decade-long journey as an immigrant since arriving from the Republic of Congo in 2015.
Then, out of the blue, she received a letter in the mail informing her that the ceremony had been cancelled.
“I followed the rules, paid the full fee, waited years, passed every step; I was at the finish line pretty much,” Jane, who is using a pseudonym to protect her identity because she fears speaking out could affect her case, tells TIME. “Having my ceremony canceled at the last minute makes me feel anxious, powerless.”
This is just cruelly pulling the rug out from under someone who did it “the right way.”
These cancellations, at the last stage of a bureaucratic journey that can last for years, have caused chaos and confusion for thousands of immigrants who did everything by the book.
The cancellations stem from sweeping new restrictions on legal immigration introduced by President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the killing of a National Guardsman in Washington, D.C., particularly targeting immigrants hailing from the 19 countries listed in a June White House proclamation that imposed new travel and visa restrictions on countries “of concern.”
And then there is this story from the AP: Trump administration separates thousands of migrant families in the US.
If anyone wants to note that our immigration system needs a major overhaul, they will get no argument from me. But I simply cannot accept that the solution is to find the cruelest avenues within the current system. It is simply an immoral route.
Further, all of this continues to underscore a profoundly ugly nativist, anti-foreigner, and inhuman ideology at the heart of this administration.
I far prefer the notion of America and a “shining city on a hill” that accepts the “tired, [the] poor, [the huddled masses] yearning to breathe free.”
Or if the moral and the poetic are not persuasive enough, we could use the consumers, taxpayers, and laborers, given the fact that the non-immigrant population is not reproducing at replacement levels.
Plus, I like a mix of food, music, and culture to help enhance what we’ve already got.
I dunno, some idealism mixed with some economic truths mixed in with a new ethnic restaurant sure sounds better than racism, nativism, and cruelty to me!
And to top it all off, history is on my side of the argument.
