this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
232 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19237 readers
2191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump said on Monday that his administration would declare a national emergency and use the US military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

In an early morning social media post, Trump responded “TRUE!!!” to a post by Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, who wrote on 8 November that the next administration “will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program”.

Since his decisive victory, Trump has said he intends to make good on his campaign promise to execute mass deportations, beginning on the first day of his presidency. But many aspects of what he has described as the “largest deportation program in American history” remain unclear.

Trump has previously suggested he would rely on wartime powers, military troops and sympathetic state and local leaders. Such a sprawling campaign – and the use of military personnel to carry it out – is almost certain to draw legal challenges and pushback from Democratic leaders, some of whom have already said they would refuse to cooperate with Trump’s deportation agenda.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Deport everyone who arrived after 1350AD and their descendents. Make America native again

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The sad part is, first nations folks don't even want to do this, they serve in the armed forces at very high rates, I don't mean it's sad they are very much American, I mean it's sad that they have more respect on average for other Americans than people have respect for them.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

Yup. Remember that right wing asshole candidate who yelled at a native American lady to 'go back there she came from'? You can bet he will be gleeful about these plans.

These people are totally lacking in any self-awareness or sense of history.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Animals got here before humans did. Deport all humans.

🤓

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

As a human, I support this. We just make things worse.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

I am a wizard and I approve this acronym.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, kick them all out! My 23andme says I am 3% native American so I can say that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Seems arbitrary, as a date. Deport everyone whose ancestors immigrated. That's the 'first' nations, too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Not entirely arbitrary. I tried to pick a date before the majority of Europeans immigrated. The goal was to point out the absurdity of the original idea by taking it to an extreme.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah but they immigrated from Europe and do you think Europe will take both them and white Americans?

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Boy I'm gonna get a lot of fucking mileage out of this image, aren't I...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why is Marty an aware Nazi? Who are they?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The joke is time travel i guess; everything the Nazi's pioneered is being not-so-slowly parroted by Trump and crew like its new again, when its really not...

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The It Could Happen Here podcast pointed out that the sheer amount of financial maneuvering to pull this off would not be an insignificant amount, from detention centers to staffing, etc. Not that it's an impossible task but it's a lot bigger to pull off than bOtH SiDeS tend to think.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure how much of a financial burden the staffing side will actually be. Trump's campaign has been going around the heartland for 2-3 years, gathering up the names of eager supporters who want to help him in any way possible.

I'm pretty sure if those volunteers are told they will a) be helping Dear Leader, b) be given unchecked powers to torment and intimidate Latinos/Latinas, they will leap at the opportunity. And they will probably happily pay for any accommodation and food out if their own pocket.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well Texas just offered Trump the land for it. So that covers that (though I'm sure he'll find a way to get taxpayers to pay for it and take a cut)

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Also, how will this reverse prices back to the "good old days" of donvict's first tenure?

I mean, I'm using my entire paycheck up on a dozen eggs, or so "JD" "Vance" told me.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It will destroy the economy, entire sectors of commerce will end, and Trump was trying to shut down all trade from the southern boarder entirely his whole last term, no matter how many times his staff told him billions of dollars in trade cross the boarder every single day. If he dosen't have people in place willing to tell him no. Which he's getting really good at placing yes men everywhere, then he'll probably do that as well, and might do it with flights and trains from the south of the US as well. If that happens and he's dumping billions into depopulating the US by 22mil the US is going see the worst economic disaster in our history by several magnitudes. Maybe enough protesters get organized and strategically block road for long enough to actually slow them down, but with the US military I don't see that happening.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Imagine you create a world where currency becomes less and less valuable. Essentially it becomes worthless.

Debts, will, of course, soar out of control. Trump, banks, private equity, mortgages, etc. Everyone is underwater.

How do people eat? How do people get medical care? How do people have shelter? Why it's easy of course. The Party provides. "But wait that's communism!" Hold on there buddy, communism is collectivism. This isn't collectivism, this is fascism. The Government takes control of failing businesses, and decides who continues to be rich and who doesn't. Workers are provided new "currency" tied to essentially paying the owners of everything the right to work, eat, be sheltered, and get medicine. In exchange, they do exactly what they are told. If you step out of line, well, there is a camp for that.

"They couldn't enforce such a thing." China and Russia already have. I would not call it successful, at some point it will fail rapidly and harshly, Fascism always does.

There is no end game here. The intent is absolute power. The consequences aren't important for those that obtain the power during their lifetime.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

But will the military comply?

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We don't have a lot of reason to think that the military wouldn't comply. We have a handful of examples of troops refusing orders from very close in the command hierarchy to commit overt inarguable war crimes. We have more examples to the contrary.

If they get the order from someone just up the chain to torch a subdivision and napalm the children, it's a coin toss. If it's the presidents policy, and they're just relocating people? Bit risky not to comply.

Is this uncharitable to the troops that a lot of people have high ideals will behave morally as regards legal and illegal orders? Most definitely. But also, they napalm civilian targets, torch villages and have literally rounded up Americans and our them in camps before, without due process. It's not even a novel situation.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There's quite a bit of training nowadays on how to identify and abso-fucking-lutely DO NOT follow unlawful orders, so I'd have a fair deal more faith in avoiding the napalm situation than a coin-toss... but there's also a lot of training on if it's a legal order you fucking FOLLOW it even if it's really uncomfortable. ...and relocating people who already don't have a legal status doesn't stand out as a unlawful order, so unfortunately I'd guess compliance will be around 100% on this one.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The key there is unlawful. Not immoral.

They hold all the keys. Both houses, the courts, the executive branch. They will simply make whatever the fuck they want legal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's still the UCMJ and rules of engagement. No idea what it takes to change those.

Idk, I'm grasping at straws to find a flicker of hope in this shitstorm.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

USMJ was created by Congress. They can change that at will via legislation.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We have plenty of examples of soldiers merrily war-criming their way into history in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter how many power points you watch, it doesn't make a soldier not a soldier, and soldiers are defined by signing up to maybe do a bit of unprovoked violence.
They may or may not get punished for it later, but the sheer number of civilian casualties in both those wars makes it abundantly clear that killing civilians isn't the hard line we like to think it is. We just need to tell the pilot that it's a valid target, and chances are they'll bomb that wedding.

Humans are pretty willing to do messed up stuff in war. All that training is what gets you to the point where it's a coin toss, and not perfect willingness to engage in collective punishment, reprisal killing, intimidation murder or just plain "shooting through the windshields of cars for fun".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Soldiers are humans, and the average human is an evil sack of shit, so yeah there will always be new atrocities. The immigrant thing doesn't really come down to the individual soldier though, it comes down to military leadership acting on or ignoring an order from Trump... and that outlook doesn't leave me much hope, cuz military leadership doesn't give a fuck about doing the right thing, just the legal thing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, the human will to evil and the military leadership being willing to listen to political evil are in alignment in this case. So if the military is ordered to do some camps, they're gonna do some camps.

You just always here a lot of talk about how much the military is focused on not doing atrocities, and it's tossed out as a knowing trump card whenever talk of the military doing stuff on US soil comes up.
"The army would never torch a subdivision in Milwaukee, the houses look like their houses, the people look like them, and they get too much training telling them not to evil in specific ways in specific contexts". It misses that the same people who explained the rules are the ones who'll be telling them to do the evil, and that our soldiers aren't better or worse than any other, morally. And soldiers regularly do evil in places that look like their homes, to people who look like their families.

The integrity of the military is just not a barrier to them being used to do bad things ™ domestically.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah for sure - lawful orders only matter if the law is moral, and historically... yeah...

This is one of the examples where I don't think lawful order training will make a huge difference.

That said, illegal immigrants - even if they're just as bad a Fox paints them (WHICH IS BULLSHIT), they're still not a tactical threat, so if there's any hope from a military perspective of leadership not being on board, it'll be from a priority standpoint. ...which ofc hinges on military leadership not all being replaced with Trump loyalists, so even that's a short term hope.

Even with all that though, domestically I'm not really worried about the military; it's the cops I'm worried about. Trump already has a massive, religiously loyal, heavily armed goon squad in every single city in the US. And secondary to them are all the civilian Trumpanzees who'll respond without question to his stochastic domestic terrorism. This country's fucked well ahead of military involvement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Definitely agree 100%.

The cop thing is weird. In all the cases where (extremist) people talk about wanting to use the military that would normally be handled by the police, like crowd control, detaining large numbers of people, or systematic checkpoints and door to do searches, I'd actually prefer the military to the cops. Not because they'll push back or violate civil liberties any less, but because military training is consistent and actually happens, so when someone shoves them at a checkpoint the training they regress to will be at least of a higher baseline quality than the average cop.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It's pretty wild to watch military footage through the lens of "what if those were cops, and what if the people they were engaging were civilians...?" and realizing that the military shows a relative shit-ton of restraint. Soo many times where the military folks see like a hand reach back into a pocket they can't see - and they'll react, by tensing up and getting a hand on their weapon or something... and that's it... and out comes a wallet from the other dude, military folks understand there's no threat, and the situation never escalates.

Cops? Dude would have 4 clips unloaded into him by 3 people.

I know cops have their own version of rules of engagement - probable cause and such - but they kinda just don't give a fuck.

Don't get me wrong, the military is fucked up in a lot of ways - I was there, it's fucking bad - but it's not that kind of bad.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

He will be replacing generals with fox news stuff until they do.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

On this? I would assume so. I don't think there's a constitutional conflict unfortunately ethnic clensing is very much legal in the US framework, unless Biden spent significant amounts of time hiding legal prohibitions on ethnic clensing all over the place, it's still very legal. It's still legal for the US to forcibly sterilize anyone they can claim a biological flaw against. It's still legal to put people in concentration camps based on race, ethnicity, and national origin going back two generations. No one even cares that the last time Trump was in office ICE was forcing hysterectomies on asylum seekers of all ages with no medical justification.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Trump is already planning on introducing a mechanism to fire generals he doesn't like. A review board consisting of retired generals. I don't know what would be required to pass that, but I assume a simple majority in House / Senate, plus a predetermined ruling in the inevitable SCOTUS challenge, will certainly go his way.

You (not you personally) chuckle fucks didn't vote against this. Great fucking job.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

how bout you deport your own ass to the polluted swamp that first congealed you

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think this will work the way he expects. While he has the 'legal' authority to take command of a State's National Guard, there is absolutely no way a single one of the governors would allow this. The red states may allow the military into their bluer cities, but the Democrat governors have largely already said they'll refuse it.

The largest issue is that the "Mass Deportations" don't forcibly remove people from the country. They have to process where they all get sent. Guess where they concentrate the immigrants? Guess what happens when those facilities get too full to use them as a cheap source of labor or keep them fed?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Guess who’s fault it will be when the price of strawberries goes up.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How? I just don't see this as a feasible course of action.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Isn’t it illegal to use the military internally? The National Guard, maybe. But, they answer to the state government.

He’ll have pushback if not outright mutiny from the military if he tries to use them against civilians, citizens or not.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Ahh, but this is why he's already forming a board to throw out any officers that are brash enough to get in his way, bypassing official channels. The endgame, as I see it, is a complete reorganization of the command structure, ending with something that looks like Russia, where specific orders come directly from the top of the government all the way down the chain, to squad-level sometimes. This gets rid of the extremely effective tactical flexibility that made the US so effective in WWII, but it also makes it so you can just axe any part of that totem pole that's stupid enough to get in your way without much problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Why do you think his first order of business is to court martial anybody who he thinks won't do his bidding?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Simple. Door to door searches. Just like some European country in the 1930s. This will go over great until people start knocking on the doors of his worshippers.

That, or like almost everything else he says, there is no detailed thought applied.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Go for the ones wearing your stupid red hat, please.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Since his decisive victory,

Decisive is now < 2% difference, I guess?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Decisive is winning popular vote, winning all swing states and having control of white house, congress and supreme court.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Ugh I hate that. Maybe he'll get Mexico to pay for it again? 😑

load more comments
view more: next ›