Americans voted for deportations. They didn't necessarily vote for this.
There is an emerging conventional wisdom about the increasingly aggressive Trump administration deportations and troop mobilizations that underlie the scenes in Los Angeles.
It holds that people really want to deport undocumented immigrants. And that means they don't sympathize with the demonstrators and won't care that Trump is taking extraordinary steps – i.e., calling in the National Guard without gubernatorial approval for the first time in 60 years and mobilizing the Marines – to address the unrest.
'America voted for mass deportations,' White House adviser Stephen Miller posted Wednesday on X. He added that the demonstrators in Los Angeles are 'trying to overthrow the results of the election.'
It's worth questioning this premise.
In fact, it seems the deportation operations that set off the protests could alienate many Americans – as could Trump's latest move to apparently involve troops in Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
Americans voted for deportations when a plurality backed Donald Trump – who'd spoken openly about his plans on the trail – last November. But they didn't necessarily vote for this.
We saw something quite interesting on Tuesday. Amid all the discussion of Trump's actions to quell the protests, a handful of House Republicans – all of them Hispanic – stepped forward to suggest Trump was going too far with his deportations.
The administration seems to have moved from focusing on undocumented immigrants who they allege have committed crimes to a much broader campaign, including targeting workplaces like Home Depot. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the White House, frustrated by its lower-than-hoped deportation numbers, has pushed to – in Miller's words – 'just go out there and arrest illegal aliens.' The Journal reports this has meant setting aside the longstanding practice of developing target lists for deportations.
But at least four House Republicans cautioned against that approach:
Rep. David Valadao of California said the administration should 'prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.'
Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida cautioned against deporting people 'that have been here for a while.'
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida suggested some of the people being rounded up could have legitimate asylum claims about the dangers of returning to their home countries.
And Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas told CNN's Jake Tapper that he worried about deportations targeting 'the milker of cows who's, you know, in 103-degree weather.' He added: 'If you're going down where, you know, you're just picking up everyone who's here illegally … that takes you away from tackling the biggest problem in our country, which in my eyes is the convicted criminal that makes all of us unsafe.'
The fact that these are Hispanic Republicans certainly stands out, given Hispanics are often the targets of Trump's deportations. But the issue they're highlighting is a valid one.
While Americans strongly favor the broad concept of deporting undocumented immigrants, that comes with some real caveats.
People love the idea of deporting criminals and recent border-crossers. Polls suggest they do not like the idea of deporting the kinds of people these lawmakers mentioned.
A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year showed that Americans opposed deporting people 'who have a job,' 56% to 41%. They also strongly opposed deporting people who came here as children (68-30%), the parents of US citizen children (60-37%), and undocumented immigrants who married citizens (78-20%).
A March Marquette Law School poll was similar. While 68% broadly favored deportations, that number dropped to 41% for people who have been here for years, have jobs and have no criminal record.
And a February Washington Post/Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed deporting people who haven't broken non-immigration laws (57-39%), those who arrived as children (70-26%) and those who have been here for more than 10 years (67-30%).
The problem for the administration is that these groups cover large swaths of people who would likely – and indeed already are – getting swept up in its deportations. The broader you go in your effort to make good on the 'mass deportation' promise, the more likely you go after sympathetic targets.
A case in point: A huge proportion of undocumented migrants in this country have US citizen children, due to birthright citizenship. Pew last year estimated 4.4 million citizen children have at least one undocumented parent.
Given Pew estimated there are about 11 million undocumented immigrants in total, you can do the math. A very large number of that 11 million, if deported, would leave behind citizen children and result in separated families.
(The administration has in some cases sent the citizen children with their deported parents, but that too has created problems.)
Similarly, the new move to apparently involve the National Guard in ICE operations could rub people the wrong way.
While Americans have in recent years warmed to harsher deportation methods – especially during the border influx under the Biden administration – getting the military involved is taking things to another level. A CBS News/YouGov poll in November showed Americans opposed involving the military, 60-40%.
(CNN polling in 2020 showed Americans opposed deploying the military to protests by a similar margin: 60-36%.)
One of the big unknowns in all of this is how much people really care. Maybe they say these things to pollsters because they like to sound compassionate to at least some undocumented immigrants. Maybe they truly believe them, but it's just not that important to them.
Trump seems to be banking on people wanting undocumented migrants out – and believing his often-exaggerated claims about Los Angeles – and not worrying too much about the details.
But we've already seen how Trump's often haphazard and aggressive approach to this subject has rubbed people the wrong way. Despite historically low border-crossing numbers early in his second term, his numbers on immigration have often turned negative, and people have had real problems with things like the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and sending people without due process to a brutal prison in El Salvador.
The danger for Trump, as it often is, is that he goes too hard, too fast, without taking care in the way that US presidents and politicians should.
If his administration is going to pursue a much broader mass-deportation effort, it will test the tolerance of not just the protesters in Los Angeles, but lots of Americans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Canada may lose access to Peace Garden airport
INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN – David Pedersen drives his truck past border customs, turns up a grassy hill and stops at a ramshackle piece of tarmac on the edge of the country. Opening his car door, Pedersen drops his feet down on the warped pavement. There it is, he says: this piece of tarmac is Canada's contribution to the International Peace Garden Airport. The paved ground on Canada's side of the airport is smaller than the footprint of a community tennis court. It's not much to look at, but it allows Canada to use the North Dakota airstrip next door. Canadians can land at the airstrip, taxi the aircraft over the border to the pavement chunk in Canada, park, visit the gardens, clear customs, and take off again. But the airstrip and the taxiway, being just south of the border, are paid for by the United States. The future of this relationship, however, is in jeopardy. Canada will lose access to the airport in next eight to 15 years unless some department in the country partners with North Dakota on a rebuild. Due to federal regulations, North Dakota will need to reconstruct some of its tarmac and that will directly cut off access to Canada's slab of pavement. The Americans are looking for someone to deal with in Canada to build a new access, however they've failed to connect with a single agency willing to partner on the project. The regulation failure is that the taxiway that gives access to Canada is not at a 90-degree angle to the landing strip, according to Kyle Wanner, director of aeronautics for North Dakota, who added that Canada's pavement is too close to part of the airstrip. As a result, Canada's slab of pavement at the airport needs to move, or it won't be connected in the future. 'What will happen here is, during the short term, we'll still have access to Canadians on that taxiway moving forward,' Wanner said. 'But eventually that taxiway is going to need a reconstruct, and when it does, if Canada does not step up, or any organization, to fund any improvements on the Canadian side, the taxiway going to the Canadian apron will just be removed, and all access to Canada will cease.' Looking for ways to keep the airport connection going, North Dakota had engineers sketch a new design that would pay American dollars for a new taxiway. All that would be needed is Canadian authorities to commit to move the Canadian tarmac roughly 300 feet to the east, and connect to the taxiway at the new location. The problem is that nobody has been able to identify who in Canada is responsible to green light the project. And so while the United States prepares to reconstruct the airport, it has no confirmation that Canada will actually join in on the program and build its side of the border. 'Almost every group that we had reached out to didn't feel it was their problem, if you will, or there was something that they needed to further discuss. And so we kind of just kept going round in circles,' Wanner said. 'Does Canada want their apron or not? Do they want to continue this partnership or not? We just don't quite have an answer to that yet.' Judy Saxby, a former member of the peace gardens board of directors, said she has failed to find any answer to who is responsible for a proposed upgrade. She has been pursuing the answer of who owns the land in her spare time. 'I've been working at it for about three or four years now, and have not been able to find out who, in quotation marks, owns the little tarmac and who was responsible for building it in the first place,' Saxby told the Sun. 'There doesn't seem to be any documentation on it.' Saxby said that the problem has been not due to resistance, but that no person has been able to give a final answer. In an email in June, a spokesperson for the Province of Manitoba told the Sun that the land is on a road allowance, next to Turtle Mountain Provincial Park — both owned by the province. The spokesperson said that if any party wanted to build on the land, they would have to discuss it with the provincial government, as well as the International Boundary Commission. When the Sun asked the Manitoba NDP government if it would be interested in investing in the airport, a cabinet spokesperson said that the government does not have jurisdiction over any improvements to the Peace Garden airport. The spokesperson said that the airport is instead in the hands of the federal government. 'While the minister's office has received a proposal regarding a future expansion to the airport at the International Peace Gardens, the proposal was referred to the federal government who have sole jurisdiction over that particular airport,' wrote press secretary Caedmon Malowany on behalf of Minister of Municial and Northern Relations Glen Simard. In an email to the Sun, a departmental spokesperson for Transport Canada said that the decision over this land, such as to issue permits or approve land use applications, would fall to local governments. 'Land ownership and land use decisions are typically handled by municipal or provincial governments,' wrote the spokesperson to the Sun. 'We recommend contacting the Municipality of Boissevain–Morton, and or the Province of Manitoba.' The spokesperson said that should a project be proposed at the airport that would affect aviation safety or operations, the agency would review to ensure complaince with regulations. On his way home from the airport, Pedersen said the recent lack of upkeep at the International Peace Gardens Airport is a symbol showcasing that the Province of Manitoba overlooks airports and their significance. He said it's one of a trend across Manitoba. 'This is a symbol of a bigger, greater, problem,' Pedersen said. In the RM of Piney, a Canada-U.S. airport was discontinued in December of 2024 due to a lack of funding on the Canadian side, Pedersen said. He argued that it was a loss as the airport could have been used this year to assist wildfire efforts in the east of the province, giving surveillance planes somewhere out of which to operate. 'Especially in Manitoba, the provincial government is ignoring the contribution that the southern airports make,' he said. 'What I visualize is that we will lose more airports.' Pedersen promotes aviation in the south of the prairies, asserting that airports are crucial for emergency responses such as wildfires and medical evacuations, and that the province does not invest enough in the asset. Adam Penner, owner of Harv's Air Pilot Training near Winnipeg, said he agrees that there is a lack of funding for airports in Manitoba, and worries the Peace Garden airport will end similarly to the loss in the RM of Piney. 'It's the same kind of vibe,' Penner said. 'The Canadians can't decide who's responsible for it, and nobody does anything, it's a real shame.' He said the Peace Gardens airport is a beautiful place to visit. The gardens are nearby, as well as the value of being able to clear customs going north and south of the border. Penner uses the airstrip on business roughly 25 times a year, including for trips to Minot, N.D. The United States this summer is spending $3.5 million to rehabilitate all airport pavement on the U.S. side of the border. Workers cannot cross over to Canada due to jurisdictional issues — and North Dakota has been unable to find a partner in Canada to organize the project. 'I'm a bit embarrassed,' said Penner. 'The Americans can resurface the entire runway, and we can't even get our act together on a little ramp.' Wanner told the Sun that North Dakota is seriously interested in making something work between the two countries, and that there is still years to organize before the airport performs reconstruction that would cut off Canada's existing parking pad. 'I appreciate any positive publicity on the situation,' said Wanner when reached by the Sun. 'I would be happy if somebody in government would actually pay the phone call and say, 'Hey, let's figure this out.'' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
"No Kings" anti-Trump protests planned in North Texas this weekend. Here's what to know.
"No Kings" protests are being organized across North Texas and nationwide to challenge what organizers describe as the growing authoritarianism and corruption of President Donald Trump and his allies. The demonstrations, scheduled for Saturday, are timed to coincide with Trump's birthday, the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, and a planned military parade in Washington, D.C. Organizers say the protests also aim to oppose the administration's immigration policies. Getty Images At least 15 protests have been scheduled across the region so far. "'No Kings' is a nationwide day of defiance," the group states. "We're taking action to reject authoritarianism and to show the world what democracy truly looks like. On June 14, we stand united to declare: no thrones, no crowns, no kings." Fulfilling a key Trump campaign pledge The protests come as Mr. Trump escalates immigration enforcement in a renewed push to fulfill a central campaign promise. The Department of Homeland Security has authorized federal agencies – including the DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals – to assist in locating and deporting undocumented immigrants, as part of Mr. Trump's broader plan to carry out mass deportations and reassert what he calls "law and order" at the southern border. Supporters contend the administration is enforcing long-standing immigration laws and addressing what they describe as a growing crisis at the southern border. What is "No Kings Day"? "No Kings Day" is a nationwide day of peaceful protest organized to coincide with a military parade in Washington, D.C., marking the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. According to CBS News, the parade and related festivities are expected to cost between $25 million and $45 million. The movement is grounded in a strong rejection of authoritarianism, with organizers promoting nonviolent action and civic engagement. Their rallying cry: "No thrones, no crowns, no kings." Participants are urged to remain peaceful and lawful throughout the events. "We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events," the statement reads. "No Kings" protest locations in North Texas – Saturday, June 14 Arlington Arlington Sub Courthouse – 700 E. Abram St. 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Burleson 100 NW John Jones Drive 1 p.m. – 3 p.m. Carrollton Carrollton Winco (sidewalk south of parking lot) – 2620 N. Josey Lane 10:30 a.m. Collin County Northwest intersection of SH 380 and U.S. 75 – 2025 N. Central Expressway 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Dallas Akard Plaza – 1500 Marilla St. 12 p.m. – 2 p.m. Denton Denton Square – 110 W. Hickory St. 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. Fort Worth Burk Burnett Park Noon Frisco FM 423 and Old Newman Road 9:30 a.m. – 11 a.m. Greenville No location shared 9 a.m. – 2 p.m. Kari Lane and Wesley Street 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Kaufman 100 W. Mulberry St. 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. McKinney Near Target – Highway 380 west of U.S. 75 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. Sanger Sanger Square – Sanger 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Sherman No location shared 11:45 a.m. – 1:15 p.m. Weatherford Parker County Courthouse – 1 Courthouse Square 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. Protesters and officials emphasize peace As "No Kings Day" approaches, organizers and officials alike are calling for peaceful demonstrations. Liam Kent, chairman of the Blue Anchor Project and a key partner in the movement, described the event as both a protest and a national day of action against what he calls President Trump's authoritarian overreach. Kent said the movement has mobilized millions across 2,000 locations to stand against what they see as Trump's attempt to consolidate power. In Dallas, City Hall is among the planned protest sites. Police there have already responded to an earlier unpermitted protest near the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge, resulting in one arrest. However, Dallas police emphasized their commitment to protecting lawful, peaceful assemblies, stating that public safety remains their top priority. Gov. Abbott deploys National Guard Gov. Greg Abbott added a layer of security that surprised city officials in San Antonio, who said the city had not requested the Texas National Guard. San Antonio Police Chief William McManus directed media questions about the deployment to the state. "The questions you're asking me about the National Guard, I would ask you to direct those questions to the individual who's responsible for deploying them," McManus said. Abbott said he is deploying the National Guard and Department of Public Safety troopers to ensure Texans do not experience the kind of anti-ICE incidents seen in Los Angeles. "There is freedom of speech. However, if in your protest you damage somebody's property or you harm an individual, that's violating the law and you will be arrested for it," he said. Abbott and No Kings both expressed a shared stance against violence and lawlessness. The governor declined to disclose specific deployment locations. "As it concerns the exact tactics and things like that, we don't disclose those publicly," he said. "You will see them arise in response to what we see on the ground."
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Asks Justices to Clear the Way for Cuts to Education Department
Lawyers for the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to move ahead with plans to dismantle the Education Department by lifting a lower court order that had prevented department workers from being fired. The request came as an emergency application, the latest in a flurry of such appeals to the Supreme Court filed since the start of the second Trump administration. President Trump signed an executive order on March 20 that instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin shutting down her agency, a move that requires approval by Congress and that set the stage for the legal fight over the federal government's role in the country's schools. In Friday's filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to overturn a temporary ruling issued in late May by a federal judge in Massachusetts that had ordered government officials to reinstate thousands of fired workers. Judge Myong J. Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit on May 22, a setback for the administration. In his filing to the justices, Mr. Sauer argued that the lower court judge had 'thwarted the executive branch's authority to manage the Department of Education.' A pair of school districts in Massachusetts, the American Federation of Teachers and 21 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in March, seeking to block Mr. Trump's executive order. They also sought to walk back a massive round of layoffs in the Education Department announced that month that would affect about half of its employees. Judge Joun sided against the administration, finding that the government's actions may have amounted to an illegal shutdown of the agency, which by law only Congress has the authority to abolish. On June 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld Judge Joun's temporary order. The court found that the challengers were likely to suffer substantial injury were the order to be lifted, as the layoffs would make it difficult for the department to carry out its statutory obligations. The justices requested that responses to the application be filed by June 13. The case marks the second time that Judge Joun has been asked to examine the Trump administration's efforts to reshape education policy. Judge Joun temporarily ordered the Trump administration in March to release $65 million in teacher-training grants that had been suspended as part of the president's plans to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies. In that matter, an appeals court upheld the temporary order. But the Supreme Court overruled Judge Joun in April and said that the grants could be suspended.
