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...
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 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.
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.
csto12•3h ago
mizzao•3h ago
intermerda•3h ago
Spooky23•3h ago
mindslight•3h ago
atkailash•3h ago
yibg•3h 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•3h 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•3h ago
rpgwaiter•3h ago
Smeevy•3h ago
One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.
DemocracyFTW2•2h ago
duped•3h 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.
KennyBlanken•3h 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•3h 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•2h 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.
zombiwoof•2h ago