Are we done with the great deportation experiment? Giving amnesty like Reagan or Bush Jr's visa proposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guest_worker_program) would make us safer just due to IDing everyone, and richer due to taxing more people. That's the one great thing about America, we'll try every bad thing at least once (internment camps, segregation, false wars), and then we realize we're actually not down with it.
We can tighten down the immigration entrance policy after we humanely deal with what has already happened.
That said, the AFL-CIO of today is much more white collar and diverse compared to that of 20 years ago, so it wouldn't be as brutal for their locals.
I've said this a thousand times: all unions aren't equal, and we as Dems need to drop the Midwest (aside from MN and IL, where unions are AFL-CIO aligned, and demographics are Dem aligned) and the UAW+ILU. The GOP has a platform that is closer aligned to their locals, and national has flipped as a result.
Give up the rust belt, and concentrate on shoring up UFCW heavy states like NV, AZ, GA, and NC.
Pandering to the UAW and ILU cause the Biden admin to snub Musk, which enraged an already unstable egotistical person to go into the deep end [0], and the UAW and ILU anyhow decided to endorse the Trump admin's current moves [1]. So much for making an enemy.
Stop pandering to the Hank Hills - they will vote red.
Of course, this won't change - such a change would inevitably break a lot of factions internally in the Dems, and would be fought tooth and nail by the Shapiros and Whitmers.
[0] - https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/how-elon-musk-broke-w...
[1] - https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/uaw-trump-tariffs-united-au...
This is seared into the conservative memory, so they are extremely resistant to the idea, IMO rightly so.
I never thought I'd say Bush Jr had one of the best policies on this ever, and it was the Democrats that stopped it. So, I know the left isn't nearly correct on it. That I don't even think a whole wall is stupid if we humanely incorporate whoever already built a life here.
Before I could even stop the guy waived me through. I’m white.
It’s worth noting the government didn’t figure it out. His family did. Without that he’d still be detained or already deported.
Like not to go all slippery slope, but that's how ridiculous this sounds. You cannot fight fascism with fines and courts.
As for the realities of our current situation, I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
>The largest number of those arrests occurred in 2012 and 2013 -- at the height of an aggressive push by the Obama administration to deport unauthorized immigrants. https://www.latimes.com/archives/story/2018-04-27/ice-held-a...
Just because the authoritarianism problem has been slow burning for a while doesn't mean we're not facing an urgent problem of a new degree with this simple-minded fascist at the helm.
Just waiting on a true flagship case to hit the Supreme Court and then being ignored for autocracy to start.
You best start believing in Russia-style mafiocracy, you're in one.
Prior at this same port, a woman was warrantlessly vaginally "searched" via manual manipulation at the direction of CBP. She lost. And I contacted her attorneys with my own case, they said I would lose too.
But this was under Biden, so no one gave a shit. They don't give a shit unless it suits their political agenda.
They also have deputized every state and even local law enforcement with their powers.
This has happened at least a dozen times this year, US Citizen detained for days.
Last story I read the judge immediately realized the mistake and wanted him released but ICE had put a hold on him so he had to go back to jail FOR NO CRIME, US CITIZEN BORN IN USA
On the one hand the guy in OP article didn’t have documentation and he illegally crossed the border, so what do you do as ICE? The guy claims he is a US citizen, but I bet you a lot of illegal immigrants without documentation claim they are a US citizen as well.
Also there is no federal ID system, so how do you go about confirming if this person is a US citizen or not? It does seem reasonable that people within ICE custody should get the chance to call someone so that person can bring identification for ICE to confirm the identity, and that is maybe the missing part which lead to this situation.
For what it's worth, OP article says that the court documents claim he admitted to entering the country illegal. Guy himself denies this.
> Court documents say a Border Patrol agent arrested Hermosillo “at or near Nogales, Arizona, without proper immigration documents” and that Hermosillo admitted to illegally entering the U.S.
> Hermosillo and his girlfriend, who have a 9-month-old child together, live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and are visiting family in Tucson. He says he has never been to Nogales.
Also, as you suggested yourself, even if he didn't have an ID on him, he would have had one at home.
the article indicates he was visiting the area from where he lived in New Mexico and he was "lost", but it's not clear from the article whether he was seen crossing the border, or other evidence like that.
It’s possible this is something that happens, and just wasn’t widely reported before now, but is because of the ethnophobic nature of our current administration.
It’s also possible this is far outside of the norm and deserves more attention than it’s getting just on the face of its irregularity.
I cannot find a non-AI generated (in my admittedly quick search) list of statistics of how many US citizens have been detained by ICE (and I do not trust that AI generated answers are accurate), so I am left with feelings, and my feelings indicate this would have been a news story no matter how rarely or often it happens, and therefore is worthy of discussion and reflection as to whether our border policies accurately reflect what we say our values are.
In my experience CBP doesn't actually care that much about whether you have ID, but if you don't it just makes it easier for them if they decide to pick you out as the person they want to torture for the day.
csto12•9mo ago
mizzao•9mo ago
intermerda•9mo ago
Spooky23•9mo ago
mindslight•9mo ago
atkailash•9mo ago
yibg•9mo ago
- Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military)
- Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)
runjake•9mo ago
- Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs)
- Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)
dehugger•9mo ago
runjake•9mo ago
The point being neither party is anywhere close to being a party of either thing. There are giant “plot holes” in both their platforms.
birksherty•9mo ago
Democrats don't say party of small gov, only republicans say that. Democrats want more regulations instead.
Democrats want freedom but not freedom that give rights that kills kids.
rpgwaiter•9mo ago
Smeevy•9mo ago
One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.
ethbr1•9mo ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_...
Also the only time the US had a budget surplus (1998-2001) in recent times.
Smeevy•9mo ago
DemocracyFTW2•9mo ago
tstrimple•9mo ago
yareally•9mo ago
duped•9mo ago
"Small government" meant "get the Black President out of my healthcare." "Personal freedoms" meant "let me discriminate against people."
Never take a Republican at face value, especially if you're not in their in group. Get them alone and they'll tell you what they mean behind what they say.
QuantumGood•9mo ago
KennyBlanken•9mo ago
Yeah, and guess how? By claiming the program is rife with abuse, demanding all sorts of record-keeping and auditing...and then a few years later shouting blue-bloody-murder about "administrative cost" in the program.
I wonder what the actual stats are for TANF and SNAP in terms of paper-pushing and auditing vs funds dispersed to recipients.
> remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)
Or the really big one: abortion. Doing things like passing legislation that forces doctors to say certain things to their patients, for example...and mandate medical procedures like forcing the mother to go through an ultrasound so they have to see the fetus and if it's old enough, listen to its heart.
Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if democrats passed legislation mandating doctors tell their patients that the vast overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports efficacy of vaccines, and oh by the way, flu shots are now compulsory? They'd lose their goddamn minds and riot in the streets (er...again?)
kevinpet•9mo ago
They have claimed to be the party of small government. And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. It doesn't necessarily (or in practice ever) mean less spending.
mcmcmc•9mo ago
Sure, maybe if they were ever ideologically consistent. Yet somehow “government should not be involved in healthcare” also means “government can dictate your healthcare decisions” vis a vis gender affirming care and abortions. Or how “government should not be involved in wealth redistribution” means “let’s grow the national debt to give billionaires more tax breaks and subsidies”.
This is totally setting aside the fact that small government has always carried the connotation of fiscal conservatism.
ethbr1•9mo ago
That works... until a policy area straddles both areas: abortion, free trade, etc.
enaaem•9mo ago
[1] https://insite.christenunie.nl/l/library/download/urn:uuid:9...
zombiwoof•9mo ago