Editorial: High price of the Trump roundups — Stephen Miller wants to deport law-abiding immigrants
President Donald Trump's campaign promise to deport 'violent criminal illegal aliens' won him votes, but has now become a far broader effort ensnaring millions of law-abiding people living and working productively in all parts of the country.
And who are these dangerous foreigners?
They're watching your kids. Building your homes. Cooking your food when you go out to eat. So please don't be too surprised when the cost of basic services climbs even higher under a president who is already wreaking havoc on the economy with his on-again, off-again tariffs.
The architect of this campaign is White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
The right-leaning Washington Examiner reports that Miller gathered ICE leaders in Washington to berate them for not arresting more people. An exasperated Miller asked 'what do you mean you're going after criminals?' and demanded that the ICE field office directors explain 'why aren't you at Home Depot? Why aren't you at 7-Eleven?' to arrest immigrants.
This was after ICE had already sent agents to arrest people at their immigration court hearings, after it began sending masked cops out to make detentions, after ICE ended its sensitive locations policy to allow it to detain people in churches and hospitals, after a blitzkrieg operation to send hundreds of people to a Salvadoran mega-prison. None of this is nearly enough for Miller.
It was clear to anyone paying attention that Trump's second term would make it a focus to detain and deport as many people as possible — even if it meant mainly targeting regular long-time residents and actually deemphasizing enforcement against dangerous criminals, which the administration has done via pulling federal agents away from functions like investigating drug trafficking and child sexual exploitation.
This is what Trump himself said so frequently, and his rallies infamously featured those 'mass deportation now' signs.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do not really pay attention, or only hear what they want to hear from political figures. This attitude was neatly exemplified by Vanessa Cowart, a friend of Ming Li 'Carol' Hui, a longtime resident of Kennett, Mo., who was detained by ICE in April. 'No one voted to deport moms,' Cowart said of the heavily Trump-voting town where Carol was raising her three American-born children.
The problem is that these folks, unwittingly or not, did vote to deport moms, and they should understand that. It's a shame that these realizations have come only after so much damage has already been done, and after innocent community members have been punished for some voters' ignorance.
Who is going to take the low-paying jobs that undocumented immigrants filled? Who will take care of your kids or clean your home?
There was never going to be a system that somehow only nabbed the really bad guys and excluded all of the 'good guys' that people believed would be exempt from Trump's explicit promises. It was always going to be an effort to bump up the numbers that Miller wants at all costs.
Miller does dislike immigrants because they are 'criminals,' but precisely because they are immigrants. If Miller can expend the exact same amount of resources to capture and deport 100 law-abiding families versus a few hard-core criminals, he'll pick the families every time, because that just means fewer immigrants overall, his ultimate objective. It's not and never was about safety.
_____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hegseth Defends Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles at Testy Hearing
In response to often sharp questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Pentagon's deployment of nearly 5,000 active-duty Marines and National Guard members to help the police in Los Angeles quell sporadic unrest. Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, also suggested in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee that the use of the Guard, part-time citizen soldiers, for homeland defense would expand under President Trump. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Mr. Hegseth told lawmakers. Officials in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities across the country controlled by Democrats, have expressed concern that the military deployments in California could set a precedent and serve as a test run for other urban areas where the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement could prompt large protests. Mr. Hegseth defended the deployment on Monday of 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, telling lawmakers, 'We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country.' The secretary had several testy exchanges with Democrats on the committee, who challenged him on the efficacy and cost of the deployments. At one point, he ignored direct questions from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee's defense panel, about the cost to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Instead, Mr. Hegseth used his time to attack Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the Biden administration. A clearly frustrated Ms. McCollum yielded back her time. When he was questioned again on the mission's projected costs, Mr. Hegseth deferred to the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said that Marine and National Guard deployments — estimated to last 60 days — would cost about $134 million, mainly for travel, housing and food. John Ismay contributed reporting.
