SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
george w bush
Time and Again, Mass Deportations Have Failed—Trump’s Plans Will Be No Different
The real result from Trump’s deportation plans will be not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
Nov 21, 2024
When a student in the 2000s, I was actively involved in immigrant raid response efforts that churches, labor unions, and community groups organized to mitigate the effects of then-President George W. Bush’s nationwide enforcement actions.
We took resources like clothes, food, and money to affected families in the states of Minnesota and Iowa, and conducted “Know Your Rights Trainings” for undocumented workers on what to do if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents went to their homes.
Since then, we have learned two things.
First is that enforcement actions, that is, arresting, detaining, and deporting people en masse, fail to stem the flow of undocumented migrants coming into the U.S. The Bush-era deportation machine didn’t stop the flow of people coming north, the lack of opportunities due to the 2007-08 financial crisis did. Deportations during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term paralleled what Bush did, but failed to reach Obama-era levels in terms of numbers. Still, Covid-19—not mass arrests—caused the drop in border crossings, illegal and legal. Crossings picked up post-pandemic with political and economic disasters in Central America and Venezuela driving people north.
How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
The second thing we learned is how to play defense.
More to the point—in addition to remembering how to prepare immigrant communities for raids, groups like those I was part of grew to include politicians and lawyers who over the years generated sanctuary ordinances around the country that proved effective the first time Trump was in power. Accordingly, the tools for Trump’s mass deportation plan are well-known and his fantasy of addressing our ongoing immigration crisis by amping up arrests will fail.
Before parsing details, let’s make one thing clear—Trump’s immigration policies are mostly about generating fear, with little by way of serious substance. Just listen to incoming “Border Czar,” former ICE director Tom Homan, who promised “shock and awe”—the phrase used to inaugurate the U.S. war of aggression on Iraq in 2003—to describe the incoming administration’s approach to immigration policy.
Bombast and terror aside, we can expect that Biden-era policies like humanitarian parole for asylees from Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela will be revoked. Restrictions on ICE concerning arrest priorities will also be lifted, like Trump did when he was first president. The president-elect has already said that his “Remain in Mexico” policy will return, which, for anyone trying to enter the United States to seek asylum, means that they cannot reside within the country while awaiting a court date. Trump will also seek resources from Congress to build a nonsensical wall that people desperately trying to get into the United States will either scale, dig under, or run around. Resources will also be sought for hiring additional border patrol agents and ICE officers.
Of the many problems Trump’s deportation machine will face, let’s start with this last one—personnel. Put simply, people don’t want to do Trump’s bidding. Nothing has changed in this regard since 2017, when he ordered the hiring of 5,000 additional agents to patrol the border. In 2018, just 118 people answered the call.
There is also the price tag for arresting and deporting the nearly 12 million undocumented people in the U.S., with estimates placing the cost of mass deportation at over $315 billion, shrinking the economy in the process by between 4% and 7%. Unphased, Trump has said that mass deportations “have no price tag.”
Trump may learn to regret those words, as besides money, the government will have to expend considerable time.
The reason is that the U.S. is a federal system where states and cities can, and have, created sanctuary policies. These ordinances, which are popular with law enforcement, stipulate that local police do their day-to-day jobs of providing security without collaborating with federal immigration authorities to arrest and deport undocumented people. Practically for immigrant justice, sanctuary policies gum up the deportation machine, making the federal government do its job alone. Despite what ill-informed critics claim, instead of creating a climate of murder and mayhem, sanctuary jurisdictions allow local police to work with federal agents when a person commits a violent crime.
There is also the idea that the military will be called to detain undocumented migrants, as Trump has mentioned.
Here the fear campaign is on full display. I mean, it’s scary to think that soldiers would be turned on undocumented people who live all around the country. Yet, pausing to think this through, the military does not have any special information as to the whereabouts of migrants. So, are we to expect military vehicles driving up and down city streets, with soldiers pointing rifles at people they suspect of being in the country illegally? Will the army storm farms around the country and detain half of the essential workers without status who make the food system operate? How will it look with soldiers in camouflage arresting middle-aged workers picking lettuce?
Regardless of the extent that Trump pushes mass arrests, he will for sure whine and complain about sanctuary policies, threatening the politicians who uphold them like he did in his first term. And like his first term, many politicians will resist. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are already gearing up.
For those areas outside of sanctuary jurisdiction, arrests may increase. This happened during Trump’s first time in power, especially in places like Florida’s Miami Dade county that repealed its sanctuary policies.
Here, the problem is that immigration courts are woefully under-resourced, reporting a backlog of 3 million cases. Some believe that doubling the number of judges will help address these cases—but by 2032. Mass arrests will only further jam up the system. Meanwhile, immigration lawyers are skilled at defending their clients, taking the time to search for how people can change their status, for instance if people have suffered domestic abuse or witnessed a crime.
This will be the real result from Trump’s deportation plans—not mass removals of people, but massive time delays and wastes of both Americans’ time and money.
Still, what is most important in this discussion are our immigrant movement networks. Before and during Trump’s first term, this movement has built an underground railroad of sorts, connecting immigrants with churches, legal resources, and meals if needed. And more critical than things, this movement has for years provided that one thing that Trump and his lackeys are working so hard to wrest from migrant communities—hope. That is, hope that there will be a better day for migrants and their allies to press serious politicians about making real reforms instead of being terrorized and living in fear.
Until that day comes, we fight on.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Are Both Horrific, Irredeemable Scoundrels
Ultimately, both Trump and Cheney represent different forms of danger to American democracy and global stability. They both deserve nothing less than our eternal scorn.
Sep 16, 2024
In an unsurprising yet telling development, Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney has thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, over his party’s candidate, framing former President Donald Trump as an unprecedented threat to the United States. On its face, this endorsement might appear as a principled defence of democracy from a longstanding Republican stalwart. But beneath the surface lies a troubling irony.
Cheney, the architect of some of the most disastrous foreign and domestic policies of the early 21st century, now seeks to claim the moral high ground. The legacy of his policies – particularly the havoc unleashed during the Iraq War and the broader “war on terror” – continues to reverberate globally, causing suffering and instability that far surpass anything Trump has wrought to date.
During Tuesday’s presidential debate, Harris proudly touted Dick Cheney’s endorsement as a badge of honour – a moment as baffling as it was revealing.
Embracing a man whose policies left a trail of death and destabilization in their wake as a champion of American values lacks any semblance of moral clarity. Cheney, whose hands are stained with the blood of countless innocents from Iraq to Guantanamo, who undermined American democracy and terrorized countless innocent Americans under the “war on terror,” should not be celebrated, especially by someone seeking the mantle of progressive leadership.
While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century.
Cheney’s tenure as vice president under George W Bush is synonymous with neoconservative ambition, a vision of American dominance built on military intervention and disregard for international law. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps the most glaring example of this approach. Alongside President Bush, Cheney pushed for a war based on false premises, most notably the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, and a supposed link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both claims were categorically debunked in the years that followed, yet the human and financial costs of the war are staggering.
Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from hundreds of thousands to well over a million, depending on the source. This war destabilized an entire region, paving the way for the rise of extremist groups like ISIL (ISIS) and contributing to ongoing cycles of violence and displacement. The political vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein remains unfilled, as Iraq continues to grapple with internal conflicts and external influences.632184874
Domestically, the costs were equally profound. The war drained trillions from the United States economy, money that could have been directed toward infrastructure, education or healthcare. Thousands of US troops lost their lives, and many more returned with life-altering physical and psychological wounds. Veterans of the Iraq conflict have some of the highest rates of PTSD and suicide among recent generations of American soldiers, underscoring the toll of this misadventure.
And yet, those celebrating Cheney’s endorsement of Harris over Trump are now portraying him as a defender of democracy, as if the destabilizing effects of his policies were somehow a lesser evil. The truth is that while Trump’s brand of populist nationalism has damaged the social fabric of the United States, the neoconservative project Cheney helped lead caused immense human suffering on a global scale – far beyond anything Trump has so far accomplished.
Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, framed as a repudiation of Trump’s divisiveness, conveniently ignores his own role in eroding civil liberties in the US and across the world.
One of Cheney’s signature policies, the “war on terror”, brought with it the expansion of executive power and a profound shift in the relationship between the American government and its citizens – especially Muslim Americans.
The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, granted the US government sweeping surveillance powers, many of which were abused in the name of national security. Cheney was one of the most ardent advocates of these measures, arguing that extraordinary threats required extraordinary responses. In practice, these measures disproportionately targeted minorities, particularly Muslim Americans.
Programs like the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) singled out men from predominantly Muslim countries, leading to widespread racial profiling and unconstitutional detentions. Muslim communities in the US were left to bear the brunt of Cheney’s overreach, living under a cloud of suspicion that persists to this day.
Internationally, the “war on terror” led to even graver abuses. Cheney oversaw the use of torture in US military operations. “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, were deployed at facilities like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites across the globe. These practices violated basic human rights and international law, leaving a stain on America’s global reputation. Many of the individuals detained and tortured were never formally charged with any crime. To this day, Guantanamo Bay remains a symbol of injustice, where detainees languish without trial or meaningful recourse.
The erosion of civil liberties Cheney helped to engineer not only devastated communities but also created a culture of fear that Trump later capitalized on during his rise to power. Anti-Muslim rhetoric, which played a key role in Trump’s 2016 campaign, has its roots in the fear-mongering that Cheney and his neoconservative allies perpetuated during the Bush administration. In this sense, the groundwork for Trump’s policies on immigration and national security was laid by Cheney himself.
When examining Cheney’s legacy, no issue looms larger than the invasion of Iraq. The war, waged on false pretenses, remains one of the costliest misadventures in modern American history. Under Cheney’s influence, the Bush administration sidelined diplomacy, dismissing warnings from the international community and bypassing the United Nations Security Council. The war not only violated international law but also undermined the very principles of sovereignty and self-determination that the US purported to champion.
The ripple effects of the Iraq War are still being felt today. The instability it created in the Middle East has made it fertile ground for extremist groups, leading to a proliferation of violence that has engulfed nations far beyond Iraq’s borders. The rise of ISIL, the ongoing Syrian civil war, and the refugee crisis that has strained Europe can all be traced back, at least in part, to the power vacuum created by the toppling of Hussein.
Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of the war’s catastrophic consequences, Cheney has never fully reckoned with his role in bringing about this disaster. By endorsing Harris, he is attempting to paint himself as a responsible elder statesman, but his track record tells a different story – one of hubris, miscalculation and indifference to human suffering.
One of the reasons Cheney’s endorsement may resonate with some Democrats and centrists is the perception that Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. Trump’s brand of populism, his encouragement of far-right extremism, and his open disregard for democratic norms have indeed damaged the political fabric of the US. However, Cheney’s legacy of violence and imperialism abroad, coupled with his domestic assault on civil liberties, presents a far more troubling picture of the threats to democracy.
The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality.
Trump’s most egregious actions have played out on American soil, targeting immigrants, people of colour, and marginalised groups. His rhetoric has fueled political violence and stoked deep divisions within American society. But the scope of Cheney’s policies, especially those that played out on the world stage, exceeds Trump’s in terms of sheer human suffering. The wars Cheney championed, particularly the Iraq War, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions. The torture and surveillance programs he helped oversee have left a lasting legacy of fear and suspicion, both at home and abroad.
What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values. While Trump’s rhetoric and policies may have caused harm within the US, Cheney’s decisions inflicted untold suffering on far more people all across the globe. The selective moral outrage they direct at Trump while embracing Cheney as a savior of democracy, is a testament to the hypocrisy of the liberal political establishment in the country.
Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions.
As we navigate American politics, we must be careful not to view figures like Cheney solely through a partisan lens. His critique of Trump, while valid in some respects, cannot erase the devastating impact of his own policies. Cheney’s endorsement of Harris should not be interpreted as an act of moral courage, but rather as a cynical attempt to rehabilitate his public image in the face of a deeply divided country.
Ultimately, both Trump and Cheney represent different forms of danger to American democracy and global stability. While Trump has undeniably stoked internal divisions and undermined democratic norms, Cheney’s actions as vice president set the stage for some of the most catastrophic conflicts of the 21st century. His policies eroded civil liberties, violated human rights, and destabilized entire regions, leaving a legacy of fear and instability that continues to haunt the world today.
The Democratic Party and some of its liberal and progressive backers’ apparent decision to absolve Cheney of any responsibility for the havoc he unleashed on the world simply because he now opposes Trump is devoid of morality. Both men have caused irreparable harm, and neither should be celebrated for their actions. Instead, we should take this moment to reflect on the broader failures of the political system that allowed both Cheney and Trump to rise to power in the first place. Only then can we begin to chart a course towards a more just and equitable future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corrupt and Rigged': 9/11 Defense Lawyer Say Austin Broke Rules by Blocking Plea Deals
"We have had an unprecedented act by a government official to pull back what was a valid agreement," said an attorney representing tortured 9/11 suspects imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay.
Aug 07, 2024
Attorneys representing alleged 9/11 planners imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay argued Wednesday that U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's move to block plea deals for three defendants violated Pentagon rules and belied the corruption of the military commission system established during the George W. Bush administration.
"We have had an unprecedented act by a government official to pull back what was a valid agreement," Walter Ruiz, who represents defendant Mustafa al-Hawsawi, said at a hearing at Guantánamo, according toCNN.
"For us, it raises very serious questions about continuing to engage in a system that seems so obviously corrupt and rigged," Ruiz added.
Last week, the Department of Defense announced that Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier, the convening authority for the Guantánamo military commissions, "has entered into pretrial agreements" with al-Hawsawi, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Walid bin Attash.
The long-anticipated agreement—under which the three men would be spared execution by pleading guilty—came amid years of stalled legal proceedings in a case complicated by the U.S.' torture of the defendants and government efforts to cover it up.
While welcomed by advocates of closing the prison and some victims' families, Escallier's move also sparked a firestorm of criticism from numerous U.S. lawmakers, 9/11 first responders, and victims' relatives.
Last Friday, Austin withdrew the plea agreements. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, he explained that he has "long believed that the families of the victims, our service members, and the American public deserves the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out in his case."
"I'm deeply mindful of my duty to all those whose lives were lost or changed forever on 9/11, and I fully understand that no measure of justice can ever make up for their loss," Austin added. "So this wasn't a decision that I took lightly."
Eugene Fidell, a military law professor at Yale University and co-founder of the National Institute of Military Justice, told CNN that Austin's move "was illegal."
According to the network:
One of the primary issues pointed to on Wednesday by defense counsel was a regulation laid out in the military's Manual for Military Commissions, which says the convening authority can withdraw a pretrial agreement before the accused begins "performance of promises" or if the accused does not hold up their end of the deal. Gary Sowards, a defense attorney for Mohammad, said in court that Austin did not have authority under that regulation because his client had "begun very important, substantive, specific performance.'"
Sowards acknowledged that motions for discovery on the issue of potential unlawful influence by Austin, which would "seek to explore how he was coerced and influenced," could take a year or two to litigate. But the issue of the Manual for Military Commissions regulation is "a simple reading of about 12 lines of text," he said, and a decision on it should be able to be expedited.
Prosecutor Clayton Trivett Jr. told the commission Wednesday that the government needed to "work through the issues raised in these motions" so that the prosecution's position can be "fully articulated."
Sowards retorted, "'We want to consult with people'—that sounds like, 'We want to get our stories together.'"
Some legal experts doubted whether the government would ever be able to try, let alone convict, the 9/11 suspects. Military judges and prosecutors have cited defendants' torture in declining to proceed with cases against them. Many men and boys were tortured at CIA "black sites," Guantánamo, and military prisons including Abu Ghraib. At least dozens of detainees died.
Wells Dixon, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented convicted terrorist Majid Khan, told CNN that the prosecution's unwillingness "to allow evidence about the defendants' torture and abuse to be aired in court" will make it extremely difficult to secure death sentences for the men.
"If Secretary Austin says that a 9/11 case is going to proceed to trial, and a verdict, and possibly a sentencing, then he is either hopelessly ill-informed or is lying to victims' family members," he added.
Accusations of military commission corruption go back decades.
In 2004, three military prosecutors—Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr, and Capt. Carrie Wolf—requested transfers from the commissions after concluding they were rigged.
"They were told by the chief prosecutor at the time that they didn't need evidence to get convictions," Clive Stafford Smith, an attorney who represented more than 70 Guantánamo detainees, toldThe Nation in 2008.
That year, former Guantánamo chief prosecutor Col. Morris Davis said that then-Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes told him that "we can't have acquittals."
Atlantic staff writer Graeme Wood asserted this week that "there is a way to clean up this mess."
"Now that Austin has assumed the power of the convening authority, he can restore the agreement he tore up on Friday—to reverse the reversal and bring these sordid proceedings to the end they were until recently already destined for," he wrote. "If he instead wants to extend the life of the commissions, slouching toward a trial that will never happen, then the pointless sacrifice of money and time will continue."
"For the families in search of finality, each minute of delay is a minute stolen, and for the defendants, each is a minute gained," Wood added. "The defendants have already cheated the hangman. The best way to end their run is to take that bitter deal, and bring these commissions to a well-deserved end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular