Reactions: Trump Saying He Wants To Deport US Citizens
"They're not new to our country, they're old to our country. Many of them were born in our country. I think we oughta get them the hell outta here, too, if you wanna know the truth," Trump went on. "So maybe that'll be the next job that we'll work on together."
You read that right — the president of the United States said some citizens should be deported. We shared some of the thousands of comments about it left on Reddit, and the BuzzFeed Community chimed in big-time. Here's what some of the nearly 500 commenters had to say:
"Until the American people wake up and impeach Trump, no one is safe."
—smileyhawk825
"The GOP and mainstream Democrats have been on a fascist path for decades, and with Trump and clowns in office, it's full speed ahead. The oath to defend the Constitution means nothing to the Trump Administration. The fascists are dedicated to the oligarchs, and under this Administration, they are brazenly above the law. There is no balance of power in the three branches of the federal government anymore. Americans need to rise up to end this tyranny."
"As somebody seeing this from the UK, it is staggering how the majority of the US voted for this SOB, knowing what he was like when he was President before, over Harris."
"We are fucked. We can't even protest or voice our 1st Amendment right without worrying about being arrested. If I could, I'd move to another country."
—fluffytooth336
"Pretty soon, it'll be anyone who says anything negative about Trump or any of his precious minions. It's sickening to think how many ignorant people there are in our country that are content to be lemmings."
"He's a felon!!! He needs to be in PRISON!! And NOT one of those guarded fancy prisons, put him in general population and see how long he lasts!!!!!"
"Trump's talking about naturalized citizens, like his wife, Melania. He's already looking for a way to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship by claiming he's denaturalizing 'criminals' and then deporting them. When he talks about immigrants, he's not just talking about the undocumented but about everyone who wasn't born in America. Because to him, those are the people who vote Democrat. He's trying to intimidate a huge chunk of America into not saying anything bad about him."
"I'm an American born abroad to US citizens. Frankly, I have been protesting and posting about Orange Don and his minions. I'm waiting for ICE to show up."
—envyofangels
"Great idea — let's start with POTUS!!!!!"
"As a 75-year-old veteran who was born here, I'm self-deporting ASAP."
"Considering that Felonious Bonespurs (aka Donald Trump) has a worse criminal record than most of the people he is deporting, perhaps we should look for someplace to send him."
"I've been telling my parents this was going to happen since November. They're both naturalized, not MAGA, but they think someone is going to stop this. No one is stopping this, in fact they're paving the way. I'm just waiting for my son's passport and I'm out. I don't want to deal with this anymore."
—maybbeyesmaybbeno
"If the USA still exists in 50 years, the history books will be absurd. 'Teacher, you mean to tell me my ancestors voted a cartoon villain for president? Twice?? WILLINGLY???'"
"No one should be surprised. This is the Trump that has been in plain sight since day one. American voters only see and hear what they choose to. If people would actually pay attention, this man would have already been in prison."
"I keep thinking I will wake up in the morning and realize it was a horrible dream, and then I wake up. Repeat. I seriously cannot take this any longer."
"Nothing surprises me. I'm one of those naturalized citizens who wasn't born in this country. Also a US Air Force veteran, but I always knew that meant nothing. I always knew we were never really free, but it's truly sad to watch it actually happen."
—iskinder
"I know it all looks pretty bleak because we have an amoral, ignorant orange shitstain as President, but this is still America. And in America, we still have a system of checks and balances in our three branches of government. We can't do anything about the aforementioned shitstain, and we can't do anything about the Supreme Court, but we can do something about our legislative branch."
"When the president is a 34-time convicted felon and liable for sexual abuse, the checks and balances don't exist anymore."
"When TF is someone going to do something? He's violating laws, and they're just letting him... like, there's NOTHING we can do but just allow this crazy ass shit to keep happening?? It's been 6 months! Imagine where we're going to be by Christmas, guys..."
"Trump turned 1,500 bad people loose in the US... the J6 mob!"
—silkypotato1354
"He's an idiot who is completely self-centered. He is mean, a bully, and is using the power of the presidency to hurt anyone or everyone he wants."
"People wonder why German society did nothing about the Holocaust. The US today has no idea what is happening in Trump's concentration camps. He is a dictator. The US has shown the world its true face: money, whiteness, power, and elitism... nothing else matters."
"The die-hard supporters won't say anything until he comes for them. The removal of birthright citizenship should give everyone pause. This just seems to be part of the 'plan' for his becoming emperor for life. It seems he's going to try deporting anyone he doesn't like, and no one will be safe."
"It's sad that the Supreme Court is letting him destroy the country for his own benefit. It's also sad that no judges are allowed to stop his executive orders. He is the destructive annihilator. Plus, people are bowing to his unreal and unbelievable demands and commands. He downplays, denies, deflects, projects, gaslights, manipulates, usurps and fucks everybody and everything up."
—smellycowboy28
"Hear me out. Saying things like, 'If the Democrats did this…' We all know that already. Start calling people out at the statewide and local levels. They are the ones doing this and condoning this. Enough whataboutism?! This is happening right now before our very eyes."
"When one issue voters bury their heads in the sand about the real issues, WTF did they think was going to happen?"
"Twelve people have died in ICE captivity so far in 2025. We have the concentration camps being set up already. I keep fearing they'll not just pull a page from the Nazi playbook, but the last several chapters."
And finally, "This was expected, honestly. Donald Trump will start deporting any person of color who committed a minor crime, but the January 6 people who assaulted a police officer were freed the second Trump got elected."
—emersonbrown
What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
23 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work?
(NEXSTAR) — If you've been waiting and hoping for another stimulus check since receiving your last COVID relief payment in 2021, you may be in luck. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced legislation that would send out 'tariff rebates' meant to 'allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' As The Hill reports, the rebates would be modeled after the payments sent out after Congress authorized the 2020 CARES Act. In that case, adults received direct payments of $1,200 and $500 for their dependent children. Hawley introduces bill to provide $600 tariff rebates to adults and children Unlike those payments, these rebates would serve to offset the higher prices consumers have faced amid tariffs. According to Hawley, the U.S. has recorded $30 billion in tariff revenue as of June. He cited additional projections that say the revenue could exceed $150 billion this year alone. Under Hawley's bill, however, the individual payments would be much smaller. How much would the tariff rebates be? Each adult would receive 'at least $600,' as would each dependent child. The total rebate for a DINK (dual income, no kids) household, for example, would be at least $1,200, while a family of four could receive $2,400. Payments could increase 'if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025,' according to a press release from Hawley's office describing the proposed legislation. Who will — and won't — have a three-payday August Payments would also decrease based on household income. The bill's text says rebates would be reduced based on a taxpayer's filing status and their adjusted gross income. That income threshold is $150,000 for those filing a joint return; $112,500 for those filing as a head of household; and $75,000 for a single taxpayer. Who would be eligible for a payment? Hawley's bill does not explicitly outline who would be eligible, but rather who is ineligible. That includes: 'any nonresident alien individual'; those who can be claimed on another taxpayer's taxes; and estates or trusts. As we saw with the COVID stimulus checks, your most recent taxes would likely be used to determine your eligibility and the size of your payment. When could tariff rebates be sent out? It's too early to say, as Hawley's bill would still need to make it through Congress. President Donald Trump has expressed support for the idea, telling reporters last week that the U.S. has 'so much money coming in' because of the tariffs that 'we're thinking about a little rebate.' 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice,' he said, while noting that 'the big thing we want to do is pay down the debt.' As of Tuesday, the federal deficit sits at roughly $36.7 trillion. If you would like to help pay it down, you can now use Venmo to contribute to the 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' program.
