The current ICE officers need to be put on notice that the next administration will NOT defend them in court against all the shady crap that they are doing. If their supervisors aren't going to reign them in and have them comport themselves consistent with the U.S. Constitution, it's their individual responsibility to navigate that issue themselves.
Same goes for any contractors or vendors, like the ones ICE is using to build their Florida concentration camp.
Trump is a thin-skinned orange peel with no principles. So it should surprise zero people that he only wants to “do better” than Biden (or better yet, Obama) in the simplest way possible. And since he’s a simpleton, “larger number” = “better”. So every “illegal” is treated in the same way….be it drug dealer or fruit picker.
This should (and apparently does) appall most people who can simultaneously hold more than one concept in their craws: illegal immigration should be stopped; there should be a way to deal with those already here that takes some consideration into what they have done since they got here, even if it was illegally.
Hopefully, some of these people will make their displeasure known at midterms.
That keen insight is the reason you are a successful side line blogger while Mr. Trump is merely a billionaire President of the USA who has the thankless responsibility for enforcing the laws of the nation.
"The Cato Institute found that 93 percent of ICE detainees in FY 2025 had no violent convictions and 65 percent had no criminal convictions at all."
Call me skeptical. I'm sure those statistics include thousands of illegals charged and released in sanctuary locales. 35% had criminal convictions. We weren't told how many were charged. There are probably millions, and not just illegals, of criminals who have never been charged or convicted of any crime walking around free today.
Even those suspect statistics suggest there are millions of criminals who entered this country illegally - including millions who entered during the Biden administration. Since the illegals are unvetted, sweeping enforcement actions are required to make any headway in reducing the numbers. Otherwise, it is like trying to separate the insects in a truckload of grain using tweezers. Detainees who are deportable must be deported.
My personal experience is that the mostly Hispanic crews who built my last two homes worked hard but the quality was poor. I don't know they were illegal - only that they did not speak English. My neighbor, after trying to get warranty work done to correct all the cosmetic finish work, simply ran them off and paid local handymen about $4000 to meet his standards.
As for agriculture I'll risk doing without marijuana and strawberries and meat if the suppliers can't find enough workers or the right machinery.
I think that’s a reasonable question. I don’t know how many were charged, but it’s also true that people charged might be acquitted. In any case, crossing illegally is not a violent crime. For the first offense, illegal crossing is only a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and does not require jail time (6 mos, max).
The law doesn’t consider it to be a serious crime. That’s another argument for comprehensive reform.
Absence of serious offense convictions does not automatically equate to suitability for citizenship or even visas.
A lot of this controversy could be avoided if local agencies would turn illegals, who are arrested or detained, over to the Feds for vetting or deportation through the immigration system. It is up to the Federal government to determine immigration needs and quotas and vetting criteria. State and local governments do not have the resources for making those determinations. They just want cheap labor and extra seats in the House of Representatives.
Maybe you and most of the commenters on this site should read some reporting other than that typified by the NY Times and CNN. I suspect most reporting is skewed one way or another, but there is a huge difference in how things are presented. A good start might be this Jim Thompson offering. He leans right but is usually objective.
Another way of thinking of it is from a market perspective: there's more demand for labor - and thus for immigration - than our immigration system allows or can currently handle.
The question is: do we all actually want legal immigration - as the market demands - or not? If so - why is ICE rounding up those engaged in the legal immigration process too?
Worth thinking about. I do not know what you mean by rounding up those in the legal immigration process. Those who are deportable should be deported. If status is unknown, they should be detained. I do not know what to do with someone who calls himself Joe and has no friends, no family, no ID of any sort, no means of support, no fingerprint record, no tax returns..........
Back to your first premise. If the lack of labor becomes so dire that it affects voting consumers, I'm sure it will be reflected in their votes to get the situation corrected. I want citizenship candidates to be vetted. I think granting legal status to illegals ahead of those going through the legal application verification process is not fair. Maybe we should have a Department of Immigration to speed up deportations and vetting of citizenship and visa applicants.
Immigrants are being apprehended at their immigration hearings - meaning they're being taken before their immigration case has been completed and their deportability has been determined. It should be a simple point of agreement: if they have an active case then they are in the legal immigration process and should stay until it's completed.
It's a pretty simple issue: the immigration system doesn't provide enough work visas or personnel to fulfil demand. Tackling those issues has little to do with citizenship - which while related isn't really the primary issue at this time.
The current ICE officers need to be put on notice that the next administration will NOT defend them in court against all the shady crap that they are doing. If their supervisors aren't going to reign them in and have them comport themselves consistent with the U.S. Constitution, it's their individual responsibility to navigate that issue themselves.
Same goes for any contractors or vendors, like the ones ICE is using to build their Florida concentration camp.
Trump is a thin-skinned orange peel with no principles. So it should surprise zero people that he only wants to “do better” than Biden (or better yet, Obama) in the simplest way possible. And since he’s a simpleton, “larger number” = “better”. So every “illegal” is treated in the same way….be it drug dealer or fruit picker.
This should (and apparently does) appall most people who can simultaneously hold more than one concept in their craws: illegal immigration should be stopped; there should be a way to deal with those already here that takes some consideration into what they have done since they got here, even if it was illegally.
Hopefully, some of these people will make their displeasure known at midterms.
That keen insight is the reason you are a successful side line blogger while Mr. Trump is merely a billionaire President of the USA who has the thankless responsibility for enforcing the laws of the nation.
Easy there Curtis. You don’t want to choke while tea-bagging that orange thing.
I suppose that's an insult, but it doesn't register with an 85-year-old.
It is. And it should.
"The Cato Institute found that 93 percent of ICE detainees in FY 2025 had no violent convictions and 65 percent had no criminal convictions at all."
Call me skeptical. I'm sure those statistics include thousands of illegals charged and released in sanctuary locales. 35% had criminal convictions. We weren't told how many were charged. There are probably millions, and not just illegals, of criminals who have never been charged or convicted of any crime walking around free today.
Even those suspect statistics suggest there are millions of criminals who entered this country illegally - including millions who entered during the Biden administration. Since the illegals are unvetted, sweeping enforcement actions are required to make any headway in reducing the numbers. Otherwise, it is like trying to separate the insects in a truckload of grain using tweezers. Detainees who are deportable must be deported.
My personal experience is that the mostly Hispanic crews who built my last two homes worked hard but the quality was poor. I don't know they were illegal - only that they did not speak English. My neighbor, after trying to get warranty work done to correct all the cosmetic finish work, simply ran them off and paid local handymen about $4000 to meet his standards.
As for agriculture I'll risk doing without marijuana and strawberries and meat if the suppliers can't find enough workers or the right machinery.
I think that’s a reasonable question. I don’t know how many were charged, but it’s also true that people charged might be acquitted. In any case, crossing illegally is not a violent crime. For the first offense, illegal crossing is only a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and does not require jail time (6 mos, max).
The law doesn’t consider it to be a serious crime. That’s another argument for comprehensive reform.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Absence of serious offense convictions does not automatically equate to suitability for citizenship or even visas.
A lot of this controversy could be avoided if local agencies would turn illegals, who are arrested or detained, over to the Feds for vetting or deportation through the immigration system. It is up to the Federal government to determine immigration needs and quotas and vetting criteria. State and local governments do not have the resources for making those determinations. They just want cheap labor and extra seats in the House of Representatives.
Maybe you and most of the commenters on this site should read some reporting other than that typified by the NY Times and CNN. I suspect most reporting is skewed one way or another, but there is a huge difference in how things are presented. A good start might be this Jim Thompson offering. He leans right but is usually objective.
https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2025/07/15/calling-out-medias-omission-and-commision-lies-about-ice-n2191656
Another way of thinking of it is from a market perspective: there's more demand for labor - and thus for immigration - than our immigration system allows or can currently handle.
The question is: do we all actually want legal immigration - as the market demands - or not? If so - why is ICE rounding up those engaged in the legal immigration process too?
Worth thinking about. I do not know what you mean by rounding up those in the legal immigration process. Those who are deportable should be deported. If status is unknown, they should be detained. I do not know what to do with someone who calls himself Joe and has no friends, no family, no ID of any sort, no means of support, no fingerprint record, no tax returns..........
Back to your first premise. If the lack of labor becomes so dire that it affects voting consumers, I'm sure it will be reflected in their votes to get the situation corrected. I want citizenship candidates to be vetted. I think granting legal status to illegals ahead of those going through the legal application verification process is not fair. Maybe we should have a Department of Immigration to speed up deportations and vetting of citizenship and visa applicants.
Immigrants are being apprehended at their immigration hearings - meaning they're being taken before their immigration case has been completed and their deportability has been determined. It should be a simple point of agreement: if they have an active case then they are in the legal immigration process and should stay until it's completed.
It's a pretty simple issue: the immigration system doesn't provide enough work visas or personnel to fulfil demand. Tackling those issues has little to do with citizenship - which while related isn't really the primary issue at this time.
Their deportation hearings have been dismissed. They are still under a deportation order.
Regarding the need for workers, it must not be immediately critical. There is no outcry over a shortage of goods.