|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 04 2025 20:27 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 07:14 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2025 07:06 Billyboy wrote:
DJT has not hit on most of his big talking points from the election, other than immigration. Ukraine war did not stop day one, Israel and Hamas still fighting, Cost of living is up, No manufacturing has run back to the US, has decreased Health care and social security.
He's sucking on everything not culture war related, but that is strangely what is most important to many/most of his supporters. He’s doing fine, he’s doing the things his base supports. They’re not actual solutions to the problems, but he is doing many of his solutions he said he would try. Other ruling parties could learn from him in this, and solely this domain. Are you joking me? This isn't fourth grade. Results matter. Trump throwing temper tantrums that alienates every US ally and strengthens the opposition isn't "trying and failing, but at least he tried", it's pure incompetence. If I show up tomorrow at work and completely undermine my company, throw everyone under the bus, sell company secrets, and achieve none of the goals that I am supposed to achieve, management wouldn't be going "oh well, at least he tried", I'd be be fired. Edit: Maybe I misunderstood the comment. If you mean people could learn from Trump - as in learn how to lie and announce failures as achievements, I would say I don't want to particularly live in a world where that is the most effective way to govern
Wombat's point (which is similar to my own, as far as I can tell) is that Trump said he would do a thing, and he is now doing the thing that he said he would do.
You're asking a different question: "is he achieving his objectives successfully"?
Wombat's later point is that he would very much like it if politicians had a better hit ratio in doing the things they said they would do when they were trying to get elected and the things they actually do once they're in government.
The way I see it, for most policies I support, whenever the person gets in government, there is always something that prevents said policy from being implemented or gets watered down to the point it's not really the same thing any more. I wouldn't mind if we tried something (that I support) even if it goes against established dogma.
|
On July 04 2025 21:19 Magic Powers wrote:What point are BJ and I agreeing on? He's denying that Trump is deporting people at a higher rate. There's plenty of evidence proving it, and that's the main point. BJ's behavior is also perfectly in line with his general tendency of attacking Democrats while playing defense for Republicans.
my bad then. prognosis however is - potentially - very different to actual numbers achieved in the end. so I would not lean too much on a bet. especially if Trump is involved who likes to throw the playing board off the table and then blame others for the fallout and/or failure... though not for lack of trying!!!
by all accounts - and my earlier point, though some people also have a problem with that somehow
bluster and theatrics Trump >>>> achievements Trump.
the inverse Biden if you will.
to add something new:
Karl Rove Predicts Big Beautiful Bill Will Have ‘Huge Impact’ on 2026 Midterms: ‘Republicans Had Better Go on Offense’
Rove on Fox:
I think it’ll have a huge impact on 2026, because remember, as these changes, particularly the Medicaid changes come into effect, they’re going to have-, people are going to be losing their coverage. The able-bodied, think about it, there was an interesting study done of able-bodied people on Medicaid, and that you know what their number one activity was if they weren’t working? It was watching television, and number two was playing online games.
And so we are gonna-, the Republicans had better go on the offense and say, “We are doing what you told us to do, which is to make certain that this program served the vulnerable among us.” Medicaid was meant for poor seniors, for children in poor families, and for the disabled, and we should not be paying for health care for people who are able-bodied, and can work, and are refusing to work. This is why they got to go on the offense. But yeah, it’s going to be a big impact. And the the work is just beginning. There’s going to be always a tendency to say, “We got the bill passed, oh let’s all take the time off and God, we got it done,” uh-uh, that’s the requirement that you then go to work.
I wonder how they will sell it, the talking points and the Dem counters. interesting battle for the narrative ahead.
|
On July 04 2025 22:08 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 20:27 Excludos wrote:On July 04 2025 07:14 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2025 07:06 Billyboy wrote:
DJT has not hit on most of his big talking points from the election, other than immigration. Ukraine war did not stop day one, Israel and Hamas still fighting, Cost of living is up, No manufacturing has run back to the US, has decreased Health care and social security.
He's sucking on everything not culture war related, but that is strangely what is most important to many/most of his supporters. He’s doing fine, he’s doing the things his base supports. They’re not actual solutions to the problems, but he is doing many of his solutions he said he would try. Other ruling parties could learn from him in this, and solely this domain. Are you joking me? This isn't fourth grade. Results matter. Trump throwing temper tantrums that alienates every US ally and strengthens the opposition isn't "trying and failing, but at least he tried", it's pure incompetence. If I show up tomorrow at work and completely undermine my company, throw everyone under the bus, sell company secrets, and achieve none of the goals that I am supposed to achieve, management wouldn't be going "oh well, at least he tried", I'd be be fired. Edit: Maybe I misunderstood the comment. If you mean people could learn from Trump - as in learn how to lie and announce failures as achievements, I would say I don't want to particularly live in a world where that is the most effective way to govern Wombat's point (which is similar to my own, as far as I can tell) is that Trump said he would do a thing, and he is now doing the thing that he said he would do.You're asking a different question: "is he achieving his objectives successfully"? Wombat's later point is that he would very much like it if politicians had a better hit ratio in doing the things they said they would do when they were trying to get elected and the things they actually do once they're in government. The way I see it, for most policies I support, whenever the person gets in government, there is always something that prevents said policy from being implemented or gets watered down to the point it's not really the same thing any more. I wouldn't mind if we tried something (that I support) even if it goes against established dogma.
If we look at both of Trump's terms combined, I'd say he's had mixed results. There are definitely things he's accomplished as promised (dialing back women's rights, removing healthcare, attacking immigrants, etc.), and there are definitely platforms he ran on but never significantly addressed (building a wall, imprisoning Hillary Clinton, making the best deals, making us respected around the world, etc.).
To be fair though, all presidents have had mixed results, and I wouldn't be surprised if his supporters had the general consensus that he's mostly doing what he said he would, and that any shortcomings are probably due to other politicians getting in his way (Obama, Biden, Harris, Congressional Democrats, Congressional non-MAGA Republicans, etc.).
MAGA is probably pretty happy with Trump overall.
|
On July 04 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/
From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month.
Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan).
Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though?
|
BJ's points are fluid, they are pure motion in action, they are like Bruce Lee.
|
On July 04 2025 22:58 Velr wrote:
BJ's points are fluid, they are pure motion in action, they are like Bruce Lee.
At some point i also remember the argument of "Trump is so scary, so the illegal migrants just stop coming across the border, leading to fewer deportations."
Which is kinda reasonable. I wouldn't go to the US either. And i think that deportation numbers is a fucking shitty benchmark to look at. Better numbers would be anything that is actually linked to quality of life in the US.
|
On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/ From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month. Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan). Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though?
I think that was introvert or oBlade's point. It's a fair hypothesis that Trump's rhetoric scares immigrants away, so deporting 24k/month means there's almost 24k fewer immigrants in the country. Whereas Biden deporting 22k immigrants per month was meaningless because he didn't scare them from crossing and the net effect was 0.
It's a somewhat reasonable hypothesis, but there is no direct data at all on that, so we just have to believe them when they say that. Welcome to truthiness!
|
On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy".
I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition.
Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state"
|
On July 04 2025 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy". I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition. Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state"
We could certainly relabel everyone however we want. For example, some people might say that socialists and capitalists are two groups with differing economic philosophies, but one could also describe those "two groups" more as "factions of one overarching (human) species". The semantics is just based on the points we want to make, even though socialists and capitalists do have some key differences (as do Democrats and Republicans).
|
On July 04 2025 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy". I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition. Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state"
Then why didn't you make that an option?
|
On July 05 2025 00:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy". I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition. Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state" We could certainly relabel everyone however we want. For example, some people might say that socialists and capitalists are two groups with differing economic philosophies, but one could also describe those "two groups" more as "factions of one overarching (human) species". The semantics is just based on the points we want to make, even though socialists and capitalists do have some key differences (as do Democrats and Republicans).
That would be reasonable if we were juxtaposing humans with another comparable species, like an intelligent alien race that doesn't recognizably organize itself as either capitalist or socialist.
As in "capitalists and socialists are factions of humans juxtaposed with the proglactians and flurglesmors which are factions of the staxo species".
The point is that capital/capitalism/capitalists is/are the single ruling party that both factions serve at the pleasure of.
On July 05 2025 00:35 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy". I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition. Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state" Then why didn't you make that an option?
I didn't make the poll?
|
On July 05 2025 00:35 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2025 01:28 Jankisa wrote:OK, so, apparently there are flavors to controlled opposition definition, which one would you say the Democrats are? For GH but for others as well: Poll: Controlled opposition?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Systematic Opposition (permitted and controlled by the ruling party)
☐ Loyal Opposition (fight for their candidates but no real resistance to the controling party agenda)
☐ Placeholder Opposition (unctions as a placeholder for opposition without any real power or ability)
☐ Co-opted or Weakened Opposition (deliberately weakened or co-opted by the ruling powers)
☐ One party state minor party (under the control of the dominant party)
☐ Not contolled opposition
I'd say either they aren't or they are on their way to be come Co-opted or Weakened Opposition, basically they are on their way of being in a China or Russia type "democracy". I'm surprised almost half of responders identified Democrats as some form of controlled opposition. Personally I guess I would describe the "two parties" more as a "factions of a one (capitalist) party state" Then why didn't you make that an option?
I don't think the poll was created by GH.
|
On July 04 2025 23:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 04 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/ From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month. Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan). Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though? I think that was introvert or oBlade's point. It's a fair hypothesis that Trump's rhetoric scares immigrants away, so deporting 24k/month means there's almost 24k fewer immigrants in the country. Whereas Biden deporting 22k immigrants per month was meaningless because he didn't scare them from crossing and the net effect was 0. It's a somewhat reasonable hypothesis, but there is no direct data at all on that, so we just have to believe them when they say that. Welcome to truthiness!
There are extensive data on border crossings.
There are data on releases into the US.
There are extensive data on detentions, and on removals, and on type and under what authority (e.g. normal vs. Title 42 when it was used during covid times under the reasoning of public health, border enforcement vs. removals that are ordered by judges). There is absolute data on removals that are judge-ordered - this is the classic notion of a "deportation."
The things there are not extensive data on are:
-Visa overstays, except indirectly inferred proportions.
-Self-deportations that happen completely outside of detention and custody, meaning: Someone comes or stays illegally, and then leaves. One reason there isn't data on that is the US doesn't have full exit tracking. If you have full exit tracking, you know immediately when someone becomes illegal because you look at everyone who has left, and you see if someone whose time is up isn't in that group, they most likely haven't left, and then you could flag them, give them a notice, and later find and deport them. Another reason is someone can cross the border in both directions so even while tracking everyone who leaves the right way, you could miss them leaving.
There is better data on who specifically self-deports upon being caught, which is a lot of people, because it's faster and better than being held in detention until removal.
|
On July 04 2025 16:25 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 08:49 LightSpectra wrote:On July 04 2025 08:04 micronesia wrote:
When Trump tries but fails, at least he tried, which is more than anyone else did.
When Biden tried and failed, it only mattered that he failed. Hell, if he tried and succeeded, you could probably squint and turn it into a failure somehow. The IRA had $600b to combat climate change. Biden got every Democratic Senator including Joe Manchin from coal country to vote for it, but it's still commonplace to hear "nobody's doing anything about it" even among other Democrats. The double standard the two political parties get is absolutely insane. Democrats dangled the New green deal in front of people and then delivered something, let's just say, not entirely in the same spirit.
Biden never campaigned on the Green New Deal. That was a specifically progressive plank.
|
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On July 04 2025 22:08 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 20:27 Excludos wrote:On July 04 2025 07:14 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2025 07:06 Billyboy wrote:
DJT has not hit on most of his big talking points from the election, other than immigration. Ukraine war did not stop day one, Israel and Hamas still fighting, Cost of living is up, No manufacturing has run back to the US, has decreased Health care and social security.
He's sucking on everything not culture war related, but that is strangely what is most important to many/most of his supporters. He’s doing fine, he’s doing the things his base supports. They’re not actual solutions to the problems, but he is doing many of his solutions he said he would try. Other ruling parties could learn from him in this, and solely this domain. Are you joking me? This isn't fourth grade. Results matter. Trump throwing temper tantrums that alienates every US ally and strengthens the opposition isn't "trying and failing, but at least he tried", it's pure incompetence. If I show up tomorrow at work and completely undermine my company, throw everyone under the bus, sell company secrets, and achieve none of the goals that I am supposed to achieve, management wouldn't be going "oh well, at least he tried", I'd be be fired. Edit: Maybe I misunderstood the comment. If you mean people could learn from Trump - as in learn how to lie and announce failures as achievements, I would say I don't want to particularly live in a world where that is the most effective way to govern Wombat's point (which is similar to my own, as far as I can tell) is that Trump said he would do a thing, and he is now doing the thing that he said he would do. You're asking a different question: "is he achieving his objectives successfully"? Wombat's later point is that he would very much like it if politicians had a better hit ratio in doing the things they said they would do when they were trying to get elected and the things they actually do once they're in government. The way I see it, for most policies I support, whenever the person gets in government, there is always something that prevents said policy from being implemented or gets watered down to the point it's not really the same thing any more. I wouldn't mind if we tried something (that I support) even if it goes against established dogma.
Aye that’s pretty much bang on in terms of what I was going for
|
Yo happy 4th July to all my American friends here.
Just so you know, because you're American, I'm way stronger than you and could beat you up in a fight really easily.
But happy 4th July anyway. Have a great day if you can.
|
On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/ From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month. Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan). Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though?
Trump assumed office on January 20th this year, so that's where the counting starts, not in September of 2024, and the counting ends "on Tuesday" (I assume that's June 10th since the article was updated on June 11th which was a Wednesday). That makes it a reported 207 000 deportations over 140 days, which is nearly 45 000 deportations per month. That would be around double of Biden's 2024 deportation rate.
Furthermore, under Biden the removals were over 90% connected to people with a criminal record. The remaining deportations were not removals. Under Trump however, removals are far more indiscriminatory. He removes a lot more people with no criminal record, which is a key reason why total deportations are so high since he assumed office.
|
On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2025 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Deportations Are Starting to Trend Higher
Trump told TIME last year he wanted to target 15 million people for removal. He said he was open to using the military to do it, in the face of restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act that limits the use of the military on U.S. soil. In a campaign interview with ABC News in August, J.D. Vance said, “Let’s start with 1 million.”
At the end of April, the Administration said it had deported more than 139,000 migrants, which was behind pace to reach their aggressive targets. That is a reflection of just how time-consuming and challenging it is to find and remove people living in communities. On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security provided TIME with updated figures from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin: more than 207,000 deported. That represents a significant increase in the Administration's deportations and may reflect the more sweeping and intrusive actions immigration officials have taken in recent weeks. For context, the federal government deported 271,484 people in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.
https://time.com/7292939/trump-deportations-ice-arrests/ From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month. Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan). Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though?
The problem is there are multiple ways to count this. There are "returns", "removals", "expulsions", "deportations." If we are talking strictly deportations then Biden was at 271,000 his final fiscal year. For total removals it was 775,000.
Here's the table from the DHS showing total removals from all of the above by fiscal year.
2024 had 775,000 total removals, 2025 so far has 111,000 (although im not sure what month this is through).
Expulsions actually outnumber deportations by a lot. Biden had over 3 million expulsions during his term with only 1~ million being called "deportations." Source
Here's Reuters again:
In an interview this week, Trump's border czar Tom Homan said the administration had deported around 200,000 people over four months. The total still appears to lag deportations during a similar period under former President Joe Biden, whose Democratic administration had 257,000 deportations from February-May 2024, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security statistics.
So the numbers can vary a lot by how you are counting them. What MP wants to do is take the highest number he can find for Trump and the lowest number he can find for Biden and do some back of the napkin math to insist deportations are way up under Trump. Reputable news agencies like Reuters that are making apples-to-apples comparisons are saying that Trump's numbers lag Biden's. We have to decide whether to believe the news agencies or MP's napkin math.
|
The last few pages have been very strange. It is like there are many different numbers of deportations available. Even for the same period of time. How is this possible? If you guys can’t agree on the same basic measurements of deportation, any subsequent conversation is meaningless because you aren’t even assuming the same information.
|
I also finally found out that my argument from a few weeks ago about Trump's racism was entirely valid - an argument that BJ immediately rejected: I argued that Mexicans are much easier to deport than people from far away countries, which explains the discrepancies.
BJ argued that Trump's anti-Mexican rhetoric was actually not driven by racism, and he based this on the fact that people from, say, Africa were being deported at a lower rate. However, BJ was wrong to dismiss my explanation for this phenomenon, and here's confirmation:
This enforcement record comes against the backdrop of an unprecedented scale and demographic shifts in migrant arrivals, as more are arriving as families and coming from all parts of the world. In FY 2023, more than half of U.S.-Mexico border encounters were of people from countries other than Mexico and northern Central America, up from just 3 percent in FY 2010 and 12 percent in FY 2020. For legal and logistical reasons, it is harder to deport families and nationals of far-flung countries than single adults from Mexico or northern Central America.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record
So yes, racism does in fact play a key factor in Trump's deportation policy, and no, deportation rates by country are not evidence to the contrary. Thank you for listening to my ted talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
