This is a common objection I hear raised, so I think it's good that you raised it here. Respectfully, I think there is a lot of rhetorical slippage in your argument.
First, I did not support the very loose amnesty policy, but I also don't support ICE teargassing the grocery store parking lot outside of my old apartment in Logan Square. In any case I don't think one's opinion on the first thing should disqualify them from having a take on deportation tactics.
Second, I think there is substantial ambiguity in what people voted for on deportation. There were lots of promises of deporting dangerous criminals (something that I agree would be a good idea). A subset of Trump voters in 2024 did want to round up migrant day laborers standing outside of Home Depots, and they are getting what they voted for. But I think another large subset believed that there was going to be a targeted deportation of "the worst of the worst". The administration claims to be doing this, but the worst of the worst are very unlikely to be looking for work outside of Home Depot.
Lastly, to your question, I think there are many many ways for the tactics to be more humane (and constitutional). To take just one example, I think the feds should resume allowing Catholic clergy into the Chicago-area processing facility at Broadview to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist.
What is the precise qualification for which illegal alien is permitted and which one is deported?
Opposition should propose legislation that allows migrant workers to easily obtain visas and return home and come back next year. This is how it was until the 1960s when that system was killed.
> What is the precise qualification for which illegal alien is permitted and which one is deported?
I don't think I raised choosing who gets to stay and who gets deported. My big objection to the current sweeps is that they function as a dragnet where they are detaining and questioning anyone who appears Mexican/Venezuelan/etc. Generally American citizens and permanent residents get released within an hour or so, but I still think that is intolerable. For example, there was a young woman who was ethnically Latina, but was adopted by a white family so she had an anglo-sounding last name like Smith. She was keeping papers on her, knowing the sweeps were happening. She was detained and when she presented her papers the agents didn't believe that someone who looked like her could have that last name so they kept her detained for an hour or so. I think that is an erosion of my constitutional liberties and yours.
But to try and get at your question, there are lots of legislative changes I would like to see (like this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/497...). You may not support pathways to citizenship for long-time peaceful and productive residents. I think it's orthogonal to the current cruel and unconstitutional deportation tactics.
Do you think clergy should be allowed to administer the Eucharist to detainees at Broadview? To me their refusal to allow that is emblematic of how they are deliberately being cruel. (I am trying to answer your questions directly, if you would humor me and answer one of mine.)
You can argue for or against mass-deportation as a policy. Fine. But the tactics are a choice, and at every turn, the current administration is deliberately choosing cruelty, fear, intimidation, violence, opaqueness, and grief.
In an alternate world, they could have still chosen to do mass-deportation, but also: 1. sent uniformed officers with arrest warrants, 2. who identify themselves clearly as officers, 3. who show their faces and badges, 4. who respectfully but firmly conduct the arrest, 5. transparently transport them for processing in marked police vehicles, 6. ensure innocent family members and bystanders are treated with dignity, protected and offered support, and 7. throughout the process operate nonviolently, respectfully, and adhere to due process.
Instead, they are deliberately choosing the opposite of this at every turn. No matter how mad you are about how previous administrations dealt with immigration, it doesn't excuse these tactics.
So the aesthetics are bad. The execution is sloppy and it’s likely the people tasked with it are under trained and under supervised. But the outcome is the same otherwise.
I don’t know if they’re trying to be mean or if they’re just trying to effectively hit their goals. It’s ruthless execution but that’s what’s taught in business school today.
The citizens that are being wrongly violated will have their day and be compensated.
> The citizens that are being wrongly violated will have their day and be compensated.
We really don't have any assurance of this, and all evidence of how the current administration operates says that they will be treated just as sloppily and ruthlessly.
I don't buy the "undertrained/undersupervised" argument, either. If this were the case, we'd be seeing apologies for the mistakes by now, instead of silence and intimidation of media reporting on the "mistakes".
> The citizens that are being wrongly violated will have their day and be compensated.
I'm curious if you have done even cursory reading on all of the reasons why people whose rights are violated by federal and state officials are unable to sue for damages. The idea that people who get abused get a day in court and get justly compromised is an absolute fantasy.
The outcome is not the same. Regardless of how many will be deported, this will normalize the modus operandi. Been there. Aesthetic is crucial if you don't want it to be turned on you some day.
“The Biden administration has also carried out the most administrative returns in at least 15 years—more than 505,000 from FY 2021 through February 2024. For comparison, nearly 685,000 migrants were administratively returned over the previous two administrations, from FY 2009 through FY 2020.”
That does not sound like a lack of enforcement to me.
