Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The two main issues for me with deporting them ALL are:

1.  It's not practicable, at all, and it can't happen.  The numbers are overwhelming.  ICE can deport a minor slice, those easiest to find, and make a big publicity deal out of it, but the vast vast majority won't self deport and won't get caught.

2.  In my OPINION, 90+ percent contribute to the economy and live quiet lives legally except for their documentation.  They work hard, try and stay invisible, send money back to families, and just try and "get along" as best they can  We'd take a major economic hit if magically they all disappeared.

I favor a reasonable path to making them "legal" if they commit not violent or other serious crimes.  Legal short of citizenship, a kind of modified green card.

The thugs?  By all means, focus on them.

I agree with this view.  For any plan of becoming full citizens to work they should be required to register and be on record for 5 or 10 years.  I also like the idea of taxing all funds leaving this country

But that is not what was happening.

ICE was executing arrrest warrents on KNOWN criminals that were involved with a money laundery scheme with the Mexican cartels. Some or most of those involved were also illegal aliens. They were attacted by people sympathetic to illegal immigrants. When they were attacked, they called on the LAPD to assist. They declined. They then called on the Sheriff's office and had the same response. They were left with calling on the Federal Goverment to assist. That is when the decision was made to call in the NG.

Regardless of your feelings about Trump or deporting illegal aliens, I think we can all agree that when law inforcement is egaging in their Constitutional duties, it is reasonable to assume that local law enforcment at the very least would come to their aid. However, the political climate of that state and city is such that the lives of Fed LEO's is worth less than the sensiblities of those residing in the country illegally.

That's the narrative, and like all good political narratives, there are shreds of truth in it. And it doesn't explain the whole thing--not even close.

...

Probably my friends on the left would claim I'm some kind of milquetoast supporter of facism because I'm not all in on the facism theory--notwithstanding that I think the Trump administration's conduct predictably led to these protests and show that the anti-immigrant rhetoric is absolutely not limited to just hardened criminals, and absolutely does include some inherent racial bias. It's hard to explain the conduct of these ICE raids and the quotas any other way.

...

I think the Trump administration is plainly not focused on just deporting hardened criminals; I think sorting out who should be able to stay and who needs to go is far more complicated than whether a person came here with proper documentation; I think the Trump administration is intentionally sparking violence in large cities where the populations are plainly anti-Trump; and I'm not suprised by any of it--nor do I think that the Trump administration is going to suspend our democracy. Next year they will lose the House, and in three years, Trump will be the lamest of lame duck presidents, with an open presidential election taking up all of the new cycle.

fyi, I consider most of this bunk, until you tell me lots of details I don't already know which I can verify.  

I heavily suspect that there's a major worldview difference that's shaping this, and not a difference of factual knowledge.  But I remain open to the possibility.  

I may have mentioned this here on the board before, can't remember. 

Some years ago I heard a proposal which I thought made sense.  What details I can remember at this point I'll skip for the sake of brevity.  The bottom line was a financial penalty imposed on illegals who had committed no other crimes, combined with an improved/speedier path to citizenship.  According to the guy I was listening to as he detailed the process of becoming an American citizen, it's a slow process with not a lot of avenues, so if you're already here you're kind of in the same boat as people legally applying to come here.  So the idea was if you've already been living and working here without incident (and, I suppose, you can be vetted), then have a speedy process to citizenship along with, effectively, a tax that you have to pay off over some period of time.  This honors the rule of law (financial penalty) and also the compassionate side of the dilemma. 

Supposedly, this idea had widespread support among illegal immigrants who've heard the guy's proposal.  According to him (as well as some I've asked about it myself since then), they were all for the idea.  Many of them want to be here legally, they just don't have a clear, fast path to citizenship, and they're aware they've broken the law and didn't mind the idea of basically paying for their legal entrance.

I'm sure there would be kinks to work out and there may be other considerations that make that a non-starter.  Far as I could tell, it just made too much sense for any governing authority to actually do it. 

This was, however, well before ~15mil unvetted illegals arrived during the Biden administration. 

One of my primary objections to this is that it allows the MILLIONS of illegals who came here WITHOUT authorization to effectively "jump the que" and cut in line in front of those who stayed home while pursing LEGAL immigration channels.  

There should NEVER be a "path to citizenship" for people who broke the law because to offer that incentivizes future lawbreaking just like Reagan's stupid amnesty in the 1980's incentivized all the illegals who have come in the ~40 years since.  

My position on immigration is simple:

• No Amnesty, ever.  
• No "comprehensive solution" which is a political cover for amnesty, ever.  
• No Citizenship for illegals, ever.  
• The 14th Amendment was written and passed to deal with former slaves and was NEVER intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.  Further, the text "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." excludes lawbreakers because until they are apprehended they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  An interpretation calling for citizenship for kids born here to illegals incentivizes lawbreaking and is flat out ludicrous.  
• Go home and anyone who came illegally or overstayed a visa goes to the back of the line.  
• Legal immigration should be restricted to those who have a verifiable job with a sufficiently high pay that their contributions to SSI and Medicare  will be sufficient such that those programs will be better off with them as participants.  This will necessarily be age and income based.  Both systems are going bankrupt so an average wage, even for an entire lifetime from HS Summer job to post-retirement employment is not enough.  Thus, even a youngish prospective immigrant would need to have an earning capacity well above average.  As the prospective immigrant ages the problem gets worse for actuarial reasons.  Thus, a say 50 year old prospective immigrant would probably (not doing calculations here, just guessing) need to be earning around 10X the average wage to even be close.  

What changes is political.  The winds blow a different direction and politicians in general go with the winds that get them reelected.  This is an issue Trump et al. think is winning, Democrats seem to think resisting is winning.  Neither is winning for the country, it may be winning for the politicians.  In my view, BOTH political parties THRIVE on divisive issues.  There are pretty simple solutions to many of our issues, but it would be politically inexpedient to resolve them.

It is expedient to fan the flames.  It gets people aroused so the donate money and time and march in the streets.  Both parties want it this way.

I want to stick to the political strategy here so I'm straining to avoid ideology:
WRT to the Democrats I disagree from a political/strategic perspective.  If you look at the polling, Trump would be completely in the dumpster if not for the immigration issue.  He is underwater on just about everything other than that.  The Country by-and-large doesn't like his handling of tariffs, foreign policy, taxes, or anything else except one thing, immigration.  On that Trump has a positive approval rating.  

I'll add this, a few comments back I noticed this:

Next year they will lose the House

 @SFBadger96 is almost certainly correct here.  The Republican majority in the HoR is razor thin and the party in the WH almost always loses seats in the off-year election so the confident assertion that Republicans will lose the House in 2026 is not unwarranted.  

That said, the ONE thing that I think could potentially change that is Democratic support for illegal immigration particularly if that support includes condoning or not sufficiently opposing violent protests.  

I think at this point that even the persuadable "normies" see through the "mostly peaceful" lies so the media will not be able to convince anyone that violent leftist pro-illegal looters and arsonists are "mostly peaceful".  As I see it, from a political/strategic perspective, these riots are probably the only path to a Republican HoR win in 2026.  

I'm not saying it will happen and the fact that the riots are happening in the summer of 2025 rather than the summer of 2026 is strategically problematic for Trump but if these riots continue I that gives the Republicans at least a fighting chance to keep the HoR in 2026.  

This may seem like it is purely political gamesmanship but, as I see it, it is immensely important.  We saw what a Democratic HoR during a Trump Presidency looked like.  If we get that again we'll have two full years of HoR investigations and impeachment proceedings.  Trump will be hobbled in every possible way.  OTOH, if Republicans pull off the HIGHLY unusual feat of breaking even or gaining seats on the back of the Immigration issue, the Deportations will REALLY ramp up.  

That's the narrative, and like all good political narratives, there are shreds of truth in it. And it doesn't explain the whole thing--not even close.

No, that was what actually happend. There was no narrative, simpley ICE doing their jobs and being assaulted in the process. Sorry if it doesn't conform to your world view.