Brilliant, as always, but I have the teensiest note: when you make a "Do-Don't" chart, it's helpful to put the last thing you read as the one you want us to remember. As I read the chart, I realized I was thinking about the "Don't" language because it was on the right.
When politicians and the media talk about the cost of Social Security and Medicare, aren’t they really talking about the cost of repaying the money Congress borrowed from those funds over many decades?
Also, within the context of Medicaid, it’s important to note that among the first things Trump did this time around was to have the richest man in the world take food and medicine from the neediest people in the world when they took a wrecking ball to USAID. Now they’re coming for poor Americans.
It's also worth noting what USAID and Medicaid have in common, at least in the Republican mind: they benefit primarily people of color. When it comes to Medicaid, this is wildly off the mark. And does Medicaid benefit only, or primarily, "poor Americans"? I guess it depends on how one defines "poor." Study after study suggests that many USians (in some studies more than half) don't have enough cash on hand to cover an unexpected medical bill or car repair, or a layoff that lasts more than a couple of months. And for old people, the cost of nursing home care defies belief. It's no surprise that 63% of nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid.
There's a call coming up on Thursday, May 15 where you can join Indivisible, Vote Save America, and thousands of volunteers to learn more about how you can help stop these cuts, make yourself heard, and make a difference! You can sign up here: https://www.mobilize.us/crooked/event/787215/?utm_source=vsa
Some infographics and maps to visualize Republican cuts to Medicaid:
We mapped how many people there are in every congressional district that rely on Medicaid using data from The Center for American Progress. How old are they? How many live below the poverty line? How many have no other form of insurance? And who their Congressional rep is and how to call them with one click. Hold them accountable for their votes to cut Medicaid! https://thedemlabs.org/2025/04/30/republican-chainsaw-massacre-of-medicaid-to-give-tax-cuts-to-billionaires/
Excellent analysis! I am bookmarking this for my discussions with MAGa relatives and keeping it for my calls to my Congressman. My district (NJ-07) is one of the most heavily dependent on Medicaid in the state.
A significant number of people in red districts rely on Medicaid. Republicans don’t appear to be willing to consider the human impact of these cuts. Maybe they will consider the impact to their political careers.
I had to wryly laugh at the idea of Republicans committing "ritual political suicide" just because Trump tells them to. They are on their way already. Who is mixing up the Kool-Aid? I'll buy the cups!
The work requirements apply to the ACA subsides as well. If you’re laid off and on unemployment you won’t qualify for that either. So I guess you’re screwed. It seems like it’s repealing the affordable care act essentially. These people are animals. Cancers will be caught late, people will die.
DO call Medicaid by it's name in YOUR state. In Oregon, Medicaid is the "Oregon Health Plan". In California, it's "Medi-Cal". In Texas, it's STAR. In Oklahoma, it's "SoonerCare". Etc.
I would say it's gobsmacking how many people don't know that their state program is, in fact, Medicaid, but then I remember when polls showed hostility toward Obama Care and affinity for the ACA at the same time.
Per Robert Hubbell “Today’s Edition Newsletter” 5/13/2025 Republicans want to gut $715 billion from Medicaid, remove access to healthcare from 8-13 million people, to pay for billionaire tax cuts costing 7 trillion dollars .
The only good Republicans are pushing up daisies. Harry Truman
Wonderful advice, thanks, Dan! Calls to Reps on the to do list today. (Does everyone call their Reps even if in solid blue districts? I do, I want them to know I'm concerned!)
My own experience with Medicaid (or Medi-Cal here in California) - out of 4 parents, mine were fortunate to have long-term care and covered hospice until they passed. My in-laws had it much worse. By the time they were in their 90s my FIL had Alzheimer's and required a nursing home. They had no long-term care insurance, and my MIL ended up "spending down" to qualify him for Medi-Cal. (This was prior to 2024 when asset limits were eliminated.) She stayed in the family home with limited assistance much longer than she should have, but at least my FIL's care was assured. Our healthcare system is so problematic, I will definitely be making the point in my communications that more spending is required, cuts will be a death knell.
My Congress critter is a MAGA seditionist, who is an avid investor in the stock market. My NC senators are both Republicans, one of whom is a MAGAT seditionist.
Thanks Dan. This is excellent info about a complex situation. I especially appreciate the "what to do" and the handy guide. Although most of us hear know what to do, we need constant reminding to do it. Thank you.
"They [Republicans] think the politics are more favorable, assuming that Medicaid lacks the same deep, emotional attachment among voters as Social Security and Medicare." Because Republicans, in general, don't care about people who are not financially stable, they believe that everyone else feels the same. They don't recognize their privilege, and have no empathy, at all. One other thing to keep in mind is if Medicaid is cut, those healthcare costs are moved over to the states and local governments. People without insurance will still need medical care and it's usually more expensive at that point because they've waited to get help. People are forced to use ERs for medical care which means longer wait times and more care required. Rural hospitals are already in shaky financial positions. State and local taxpayers will still pay for uninsured medical care and, as a society, we pay in decreased productivity and the other ripple effects (i.e., not shopping locally because they can't afford to pay for medical care and discretionary items). I live in MO, and I can't stand Josh Hawley, but I will mention that he wrote an op-ed in the NYT arguing that Congress shouldn't cut Medicaid because, mostly, it's political suicide for Republicans. MO used a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid and, if the federal government cuts Medicaid, the costs have to be picked up by the state. Congressional Republicans are willing to cut Medicaid, to pass on those costs to the states (with Red states getting hit hardest) while giving tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses (not only with lower tax rates but they also want to increase a deduction for partnerships and other non-corporate entities).
Dan - due respect, but this is the same old Democratic playbook blah, blah, right down to grassroots organizing 101, and it's time we started introducing new elements into the conversation. Reason: if every election in the foreseeable is going to be a change election, we need to become the party of change.
Consider a 3-part message triangle: first, the larger reality — Americans are living with an economy that's failed the bottom 90% for the past 40 years and on BOTH parties' watches. That's our focus, and that's our frame.
Second, as a "challenger brand" we don't make it about the usual and expected outrage of giving the wealthy tax breaks (yawn). Instead, we 100% concentrate our firepower on the impact on their own states and constituencies — verifiable when you look at the KFF impact t maps. As such, we're not just the party in opposition; we're the party in opposition with a righteous intent to
Third, thinking and working as the challenger brand, we take advantage of our ability to define the competition in our own terms. The failure of the past cannot be the failure of the future, and we’re willing to work with anyone — left, center, or, you bet, right — to craft a package that says "we're fine with letting you prove that this stuff will boost the economy (despite Arthur Laffer, it never has) SO LONG AS we develop a package of targeted tools specifically geared to giving back American's the spending power that they've lost over the past four decades. Most immediately, this makes cutting Medicaid, a high voltage red line.
That's messaging we can ride now until the mid-terms. As to BTW, this is absolutely not Bernie or AOC wealth redistribution rhetoric (does Trump using those words not both tell you something and give you shivers?). Instead, it says we need pragmatic ways to address the overarching issue.
As to organizing, why don't we get more dialed into the way people are are working right now — think in both organic and paid terms. Where is the D-trip or DSCC congressional groups with "spread the word" tool kits — everything from Facebook-ready templates to “how to call a podcast” instructions — that turn our folks into huge social amplifiers. Meanwhile, we the f-bomb is the paid messaging that should have on air WEEKS AGO saying something on the order of —
"Right here, right now, right this instant, the Republican House and the Republican Senate are coming for your healthcare and your health. And you thought they were just coming for your kid’s toys.
Or something like that.
P.S. Just saw in Playbook that Protect our Healthcare is spending $10M in targeted districts around the country — including a couple of "red to blues" in CA. Goes to show you how pathetically little even that amount of money is — we're seeing exactly nothing in the Tri-State area where it seems to be 100% NYC Mayor and NJ Governor.
Folks, as usual (but not always), I think Dan is right here. This is because Trump’s actions reflect a treatment of our Nation as a business, not a sovereign that has duties to humanity that are untethered to the bottom line. But, under the protection of being a Friend of the Pod and subscriber (I am both), I was asked to defend Trump’s immigration policy in a friendly debate. In doing so, I stumbled onto something and I’d like your feedback. Scroll down if interested…
Treating immigration like a business results in deportations that, supposedly, will reduce crime/enhance safety, as well as free up work for those with proper immigration status. If we think of those without proper immigration status as “widgets” then Abrego Garcia is a “one-in-a-million” manufacturing defect, that the business can tolerate. If 99.9% of deportations are not of innocent folks unaffiliated with gangs, but, indeed folks who should not be here (and our immigration courts are overwhelmed to the point of essentially inefficiency), then from a production standpoint, the Trump administration is crushing it. And, therefore, on balance, the Administration is doing more good than harm. And isn’t that the point of government? And isn’t Abrego Garcia a fringe case, like supporting gender change surgery in prison?
Please don’t harm the messenger here. This is message box, and the chat is designed for vigorous debate, I think. So please have at it and counter this line of argument. I very much want this line of argument to be subjected to thoughtful criticism.
The recent actions are not deportations. Deportation is returning someone to his/her country of origin. These are more accurately renditions or kidnappings. For the minor crime of immigrating illegally, and often with no other criminal record, the US is sentencing you to life in a foreign concentration camp.
Tom, this is a good point. But, what about if (“how” for purposes of our discussion) the number of illegal immigrants is negatively affecting the economy? At some point don’t we have to say, “that’s it and no more..” Under the theory of drastic times, call for drastic measures? It would seem that the Administration’s intended effect (deterrence) may be working, no?
Have you read Will Hurd’s book “American Reboot”? I tried to, but only got about 2/3 through - - was captured by the other three books I’m reading at the same time. One of which is 1984 (yikes). That said, Mr. Hurd proposes a technology-based solution for unlawful immigration. He recommended motion-detection cameras set up at the border so we could detect illegal attempts in real time. That sounds like a solution that supports our overwhelmed immigration courts.
If you or others care to comment further, I’m going afk for work, but will try and respond back with an equal measure of thoughtfulness as you have displayed. And of course, this is a safe space. Thank you for commenting.
If I am reading your comment correctly, you are saying that at some theoretical time, when immigration hurts us economically, then it’s okay punish migrants as though they have committed a capital crime?
If that’s what you’re saying, then no, I don’t agree.
A few things: it’s still true that migrants do many jobs that Americans just won’t do in sufficient numbers. Construction, agriculture, elder care (especially the more menial tasks in elder care). I live in Florida, the land of perpetual re-roofing. It’s uncommon to see a roofing crew of English-speaking folks.
Then there’s our economic pyramid. For better or worse, our society and economy require more workers at the base of the pyramid to support those who have reached a stage of life where they are using more of the services society delivers. Our birth rate is too low to provide this growth without immigration. Take the Japanese or Italian societies as examples. Shrinking populations that place enormous economic burdens on the youngest workers.
And consider that many—if not most—of these migrants are fleeing societies ruined by this country’s thirst for drugs and its greedy and corrupt gun manufacturers. Not to mention our outsize contribution to climate change.
According to most economists, we’re far away from having too many immigrants. We just mismanage the process as badly as can be imagined. A worker’s visa program and citizen path process, both well managed, would solve 90% of our immigration problems, as well as removing the real fear and resentment that an uncontrolled border can bring.
I hate to suggest Matt Yglesias but his book One Billion Americans makes the case that we need more people/more immigration not next. Not to mention, I don't think removing a million people from the workforce when we already have extremely low unemployment is actually going to help.
Finally, if Trump were going by the law and public sentiment and only deporting new arrivals and people who have committed violent crime after a legitimate due process, that would be one thing. But we have literally no evidence that's what he's doing, and plenty of evidence that he's directly not doing that. Plus he's sending lots and lots of people to foreign torture prisons which is not deportation it's committing a crime.
Thank you for the book recommendation, Sara. I have already added it to my queue.
So, is the notion we need more people and more immigrants becoming productive members of society? I suppose (the pretext) of deportation can be thought of as a(n almost) legitimate way of removing unproductive/malicious members of society because of the failure to comply with immigration rules. If that is so, then how offended and upset, really, are we?
I agree with you about the not knowing the evidence (lack of due process) part. This gives me the most pause, too. But, does it really rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis? There is one (two, actually) instances where the “deportation” system got it wrong. Is two out of however-many-hundred-thousand a satisfactory percentage? I mean, not to use our (Democratic) lingo against us, but, “let’s not let perfection be the enemy of good.”
Thanks for commenting. I hope you, and others, will comment further.
Without the due process, we don't actually know how many times we got it right or wrong. We have literally no way of knowing. They could all be correct! They could all be wrong! But we don't know unless we take this administration at their word, which I wouldn't take literally any government at their word about this, even one I voted for. Due process is how we find out if we're getting it right or wrong.
The reason it's a constitutional crisis is because if you're just trusting the government that whoever they say is a violent criminal here illegally is a violent criminal here illegally, and they aren't providing any mechanism by which to prove that is or isn't the case, then they could take me out of my apartment, put me on a plane to an El Salvadoran torture prison and I would have literally no way to stop them. They could do the same thing to you and you would have no way to stop them.
You can't have due process by degrees - it either applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
I find it hard to believe you’re serious. Trust a wild, extra-legal process that sentences people with no criminal record to life in a concentration camp. And dismiss it with “let’s not let perfection be the enemy of the good”?
No one knows how many times the result has been wrong. That’s the whole point of due process.
Suffice it to say if you or a loved one were among the “mistakes” your thinking might change.
Please don’t deliberately troll us by calling it “deportation”.
Hey Tom. I agree with you, especially, the part about a loved one or myself. Please remember that I am espousing this position, because I have become so frustrated with attempting to understand how Republicans, or more particularly, MAGA folks think.
Let me share this thought with you: in my lifetime, I have generally seen Presidential Candidates who are either Lawyers or Business people. Would you agree with that assessment? Think Obama v Romney, or, Bush v Gore (ouch, still hurts). In any case, generally speaking, the business person is focused on results; the lawyer on process. The successful candidate, usually (not recently), moderates their focus and addresses both.
I am an Attorney who own his own Law Firm. I do as much pro bono and low-bono as I can, but, if I do too much, I cannot pay the bills. I enjoy working for well-to-do Clients, but regularly refuse to serve certain of them who are not trying to do good things in the world, if you know what I mean.
So, I guess what I am saying here is this: our Country has always esteemed the highest values, but sometimes in the name of maintenance, it strays from them. The question on Trump’s immigration “policy” (emphasis on the quotation marks here), I suppose, is: does the goal justify the means? In my personal opinion, it cannot and does not. I am horrified by the lack of due process, down to the fiber of my being. But, I imagine an argument can be made that it does, perhaps, by someone who truly believes it. That person is not me. But, I hope you and others who have commented, have found it a worthwhile exercise to engage in this dialectic without any name-calling - - I’ll disregard the “troll” comment. Of course, if you have additional comment, I am open to listen. But, at this point, I am satisfied (pun intended) with the results of this experiment: that we as a society can still engage in civil discourse.
How about a “like” in the name of Democracy - - and, yes, that’s a capital “D”….
I’ve made so many calls & sent a bunch of emails (and postcards) about cuts to Medicaid. I’m going to keep doing it.
Brilliant, as always, but I have the teensiest note: when you make a "Do-Don't" chart, it's helpful to put the last thing you read as the one you want us to remember. As I read the chart, I realized I was thinking about the "Don't" language because it was on the right.
But thanks as always for the good advice!
I apologize for the somewhat off topic question.
When politicians and the media talk about the cost of Social Security and Medicare, aren’t they really talking about the cost of repaying the money Congress borrowed from those funds over many decades?
Also, within the context of Medicaid, it’s important to note that among the first things Trump did this time around was to have the richest man in the world take food and medicine from the neediest people in the world when they took a wrecking ball to USAID. Now they’re coming for poor Americans.
It's also worth noting what USAID and Medicaid have in common, at least in the Republican mind: they benefit primarily people of color. When it comes to Medicaid, this is wildly off the mark. And does Medicaid benefit only, or primarily, "poor Americans"? I guess it depends on how one defines "poor." Study after study suggests that many USians (in some studies more than half) don't have enough cash on hand to cover an unexpected medical bill or car repair, or a layoff that lasts more than a couple of months. And for old people, the cost of nursing home care defies belief. It's no surprise that 63% of nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid.
There's a call coming up on Thursday, May 15 where you can join Indivisible, Vote Save America, and thousands of volunteers to learn more about how you can help stop these cuts, make yourself heard, and make a difference! You can sign up here: https://www.mobilize.us/crooked/event/787215/?utm_source=vsa
Some infographics and maps to visualize Republican cuts to Medicaid:
We mapped how many people there are in every congressional district that rely on Medicaid using data from The Center for American Progress. How old are they? How many live below the poverty line? How many have no other form of insurance? And who their Congressional rep is and how to call them with one click. Hold them accountable for their votes to cut Medicaid! https://thedemlabs.org/2025/04/30/republican-chainsaw-massacre-of-medicaid-to-give-tax-cuts-to-billionaires/
Follow the Republican scheme to deny you Medicaid by adding bogus requirements https://thedemlabs.org/2025/04/29/follow-the-republican-scheme-to-deny-you-medicaid-with-bogus-requirements-and-paperwork/
American Genocide: Mapping the Republican scheme to eliminate poor, disabled seniors by cutting Medicaid https://thedemlabs.org/2025/04/10/american-genocide-mapping-the-republican-scheme-to-eliminate-poor-disabled-seniors-by-cutting-medicaid/
Which 26 Republican Districts will suffer the most from MEDICAID being slashed? Check this map. https://thedemlabs.org/2025/02/28/26-republican-districts-to-suffer-most-from-medicaid-cuts-map/
How to bird-dog MAGA reps to hold them accountable for stealing your Federal benefits to give tax cuts to billionaires https://thedemlabs.org/2025/01/28/how-to-bird-dog-maga-reps-for-stealing-your-federal-benefits-medicaid-food-stamps/
Excellent analysis! I am bookmarking this for my discussions with MAGa relatives and keeping it for my calls to my Congressman. My district (NJ-07) is one of the most heavily dependent on Medicaid in the state.
thank you. excellent info. love the maps!!
A significant number of people in red districts rely on Medicaid. Republicans don’t appear to be willing to consider the human impact of these cuts. Maybe they will consider the impact to their political careers.
I had to wryly laugh at the idea of Republicans committing "ritual political suicide" just because Trump tells them to. They are on their way already. Who is mixing up the Kool-Aid? I'll buy the cups!
The work requirements apply to the ACA subsides as well. If you’re laid off and on unemployment you won’t qualify for that either. So I guess you’re screwed. It seems like it’s repealing the affordable care act essentially. These people are animals. Cancers will be caught late, people will die.
The table left out an important "Do":
DO call Medicaid by it's name in YOUR state. In Oregon, Medicaid is the "Oregon Health Plan". In California, it's "Medi-Cal". In Texas, it's STAR. In Oklahoma, it's "SoonerCare". Etc.
I would say it's gobsmacking how many people don't know that their state program is, in fact, Medicaid, but then I remember when polls showed hostility toward Obama Care and affinity for the ACA at the same time.
Per Robert Hubbell “Today’s Edition Newsletter” 5/13/2025 Republicans want to gut $715 billion from Medicaid, remove access to healthcare from 8-13 million people, to pay for billionaire tax cuts costing 7 trillion dollars .
The only good Republicans are pushing up daisies. Harry Truman
Wonderful advice, thanks, Dan! Calls to Reps on the to do list today. (Does everyone call their Reps even if in solid blue districts? I do, I want them to know I'm concerned!)
My own experience with Medicaid (or Medi-Cal here in California) - out of 4 parents, mine were fortunate to have long-term care and covered hospice until they passed. My in-laws had it much worse. By the time they were in their 90s my FIL had Alzheimer's and required a nursing home. They had no long-term care insurance, and my MIL ended up "spending down" to qualify him for Medi-Cal. (This was prior to 2024 when asset limits were eliminated.) She stayed in the family home with limited assistance much longer than she should have, but at least my FIL's care was assured. Our healthcare system is so problematic, I will definitely be making the point in my communications that more spending is required, cuts will be a death knell.
My Congress critter is a MAGA seditionist, who is an avid investor in the stock market. My NC senators are both Republicans, one of whom is a MAGAT seditionist.
Thanks Dan. This is excellent info about a complex situation. I especially appreciate the "what to do" and the handy guide. Although most of us hear know what to do, we need constant reminding to do it. Thank you.
"They [Republicans] think the politics are more favorable, assuming that Medicaid lacks the same deep, emotional attachment among voters as Social Security and Medicare." Because Republicans, in general, don't care about people who are not financially stable, they believe that everyone else feels the same. They don't recognize their privilege, and have no empathy, at all. One other thing to keep in mind is if Medicaid is cut, those healthcare costs are moved over to the states and local governments. People without insurance will still need medical care and it's usually more expensive at that point because they've waited to get help. People are forced to use ERs for medical care which means longer wait times and more care required. Rural hospitals are already in shaky financial positions. State and local taxpayers will still pay for uninsured medical care and, as a society, we pay in decreased productivity and the other ripple effects (i.e., not shopping locally because they can't afford to pay for medical care and discretionary items). I live in MO, and I can't stand Josh Hawley, but I will mention that he wrote an op-ed in the NYT arguing that Congress shouldn't cut Medicaid because, mostly, it's political suicide for Republicans. MO used a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid and, if the federal government cuts Medicaid, the costs have to be picked up by the state. Congressional Republicans are willing to cut Medicaid, to pass on those costs to the states (with Red states getting hit hardest) while giving tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses (not only with lower tax rates but they also want to increase a deduction for partnerships and other non-corporate entities).
These Medicaid cuts will not only hurt children and the elderly; they will hurt many hospitals and healthcare providers, doctors, pharmacies, etc.
I loved Fun Dip. The only question we had as youngsters was whether or not you eat the stick when you're done. I did not. Dan, what say you?
Dan - due respect, but this is the same old Democratic playbook blah, blah, right down to grassroots organizing 101, and it's time we started introducing new elements into the conversation. Reason: if every election in the foreseeable is going to be a change election, we need to become the party of change.
Consider a 3-part message triangle: first, the larger reality — Americans are living with an economy that's failed the bottom 90% for the past 40 years and on BOTH parties' watches. That's our focus, and that's our frame.
Second, as a "challenger brand" we don't make it about the usual and expected outrage of giving the wealthy tax breaks (yawn). Instead, we 100% concentrate our firepower on the impact on their own states and constituencies — verifiable when you look at the KFF impact t maps. As such, we're not just the party in opposition; we're the party in opposition with a righteous intent to
Third, thinking and working as the challenger brand, we take advantage of our ability to define the competition in our own terms. The failure of the past cannot be the failure of the future, and we’re willing to work with anyone — left, center, or, you bet, right — to craft a package that says "we're fine with letting you prove that this stuff will boost the economy (despite Arthur Laffer, it never has) SO LONG AS we develop a package of targeted tools specifically geared to giving back American's the spending power that they've lost over the past four decades. Most immediately, this makes cutting Medicaid, a high voltage red line.
That's messaging we can ride now until the mid-terms. As to BTW, this is absolutely not Bernie or AOC wealth redistribution rhetoric (does Trump using those words not both tell you something and give you shivers?). Instead, it says we need pragmatic ways to address the overarching issue.
As to organizing, why don't we get more dialed into the way people are are working right now — think in both organic and paid terms. Where is the D-trip or DSCC congressional groups with "spread the word" tool kits — everything from Facebook-ready templates to “how to call a podcast” instructions — that turn our folks into huge social amplifiers. Meanwhile, we the f-bomb is the paid messaging that should have on air WEEKS AGO saying something on the order of —
"Right here, right now, right this instant, the Republican House and the Republican Senate are coming for your healthcare and your health. And you thought they were just coming for your kid’s toys.
Or something like that.
P.S. Just saw in Playbook that Protect our Healthcare is spending $10M in targeted districts around the country — including a couple of "red to blues" in CA. Goes to show you how pathetically little even that amount of money is — we're seeing exactly nothing in the Tri-State area where it seems to be 100% NYC Mayor and NJ Governor.
Folks, as usual (but not always), I think Dan is right here. This is because Trump’s actions reflect a treatment of our Nation as a business, not a sovereign that has duties to humanity that are untethered to the bottom line. But, under the protection of being a Friend of the Pod and subscriber (I am both), I was asked to defend Trump’s immigration policy in a friendly debate. In doing so, I stumbled onto something and I’d like your feedback. Scroll down if interested…
Treating immigration like a business results in deportations that, supposedly, will reduce crime/enhance safety, as well as free up work for those with proper immigration status. If we think of those without proper immigration status as “widgets” then Abrego Garcia is a “one-in-a-million” manufacturing defect, that the business can tolerate. If 99.9% of deportations are not of innocent folks unaffiliated with gangs, but, indeed folks who should not be here (and our immigration courts are overwhelmed to the point of essentially inefficiency), then from a production standpoint, the Trump administration is crushing it. And, therefore, on balance, the Administration is doing more good than harm. And isn’t that the point of government? And isn’t Abrego Garcia a fringe case, like supporting gender change surgery in prison?
Please don’t harm the messenger here. This is message box, and the chat is designed for vigorous debate, I think. So please have at it and counter this line of argument. I very much want this line of argument to be subjected to thoughtful criticism.
The recent actions are not deportations. Deportation is returning someone to his/her country of origin. These are more accurately renditions or kidnappings. For the minor crime of immigrating illegally, and often with no other criminal record, the US is sentencing you to life in a foreign concentration camp.
Tom, this is a good point. But, what about if (“how” for purposes of our discussion) the number of illegal immigrants is negatively affecting the economy? At some point don’t we have to say, “that’s it and no more..” Under the theory of drastic times, call for drastic measures? It would seem that the Administration’s intended effect (deterrence) may be working, no?
Have you read Will Hurd’s book “American Reboot”? I tried to, but only got about 2/3 through - - was captured by the other three books I’m reading at the same time. One of which is 1984 (yikes). That said, Mr. Hurd proposes a technology-based solution for unlawful immigration. He recommended motion-detection cameras set up at the border so we could detect illegal attempts in real time. That sounds like a solution that supports our overwhelmed immigration courts.
If you or others care to comment further, I’m going afk for work, but will try and respond back with an equal measure of thoughtfulness as you have displayed. And of course, this is a safe space. Thank you for commenting.
If I am reading your comment correctly, you are saying that at some theoretical time, when immigration hurts us economically, then it’s okay punish migrants as though they have committed a capital crime?
If that’s what you’re saying, then no, I don’t agree.
A few things: it’s still true that migrants do many jobs that Americans just won’t do in sufficient numbers. Construction, agriculture, elder care (especially the more menial tasks in elder care). I live in Florida, the land of perpetual re-roofing. It’s uncommon to see a roofing crew of English-speaking folks.
Then there’s our economic pyramid. For better or worse, our society and economy require more workers at the base of the pyramid to support those who have reached a stage of life where they are using more of the services society delivers. Our birth rate is too low to provide this growth without immigration. Take the Japanese or Italian societies as examples. Shrinking populations that place enormous economic burdens on the youngest workers.
And consider that many—if not most—of these migrants are fleeing societies ruined by this country’s thirst for drugs and its greedy and corrupt gun manufacturers. Not to mention our outsize contribution to climate change.
According to most economists, we’re far away from having too many immigrants. We just mismanage the process as badly as can be imagined. A worker’s visa program and citizen path process, both well managed, would solve 90% of our immigration problems, as well as removing the real fear and resentment that an uncontrolled border can bring.
I hate to suggest Matt Yglesias but his book One Billion Americans makes the case that we need more people/more immigration not next. Not to mention, I don't think removing a million people from the workforce when we already have extremely low unemployment is actually going to help.
Finally, if Trump were going by the law and public sentiment and only deporting new arrivals and people who have committed violent crime after a legitimate due process, that would be one thing. But we have literally no evidence that's what he's doing, and plenty of evidence that he's directly not doing that. Plus he's sending lots and lots of people to foreign torture prisons which is not deportation it's committing a crime.
Thank you for the book recommendation, Sara. I have already added it to my queue.
So, is the notion we need more people and more immigrants becoming productive members of society? I suppose (the pretext) of deportation can be thought of as a(n almost) legitimate way of removing unproductive/malicious members of society because of the failure to comply with immigration rules. If that is so, then how offended and upset, really, are we?
I agree with you about the not knowing the evidence (lack of due process) part. This gives me the most pause, too. But, does it really rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis? There is one (two, actually) instances where the “deportation” system got it wrong. Is two out of however-many-hundred-thousand a satisfactory percentage? I mean, not to use our (Democratic) lingo against us, but, “let’s not let perfection be the enemy of good.”
Thanks for commenting. I hope you, and others, will comment further.
Without the due process, we don't actually know how many times we got it right or wrong. We have literally no way of knowing. They could all be correct! They could all be wrong! But we don't know unless we take this administration at their word, which I wouldn't take literally any government at their word about this, even one I voted for. Due process is how we find out if we're getting it right or wrong.
The reason it's a constitutional crisis is because if you're just trusting the government that whoever they say is a violent criminal here illegally is a violent criminal here illegally, and they aren't providing any mechanism by which to prove that is or isn't the case, then they could take me out of my apartment, put me on a plane to an El Salvadoran torture prison and I would have literally no way to stop them. They could do the same thing to you and you would have no way to stop them.
You can't have due process by degrees - it either applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
I find it hard to believe you’re serious. Trust a wild, extra-legal process that sentences people with no criminal record to life in a concentration camp. And dismiss it with “let’s not let perfection be the enemy of the good”?
No one knows how many times the result has been wrong. That’s the whole point of due process.
Suffice it to say if you or a loved one were among the “mistakes” your thinking might change.
Please don’t deliberately troll us by calling it “deportation”.
Hey Tom. I agree with you, especially, the part about a loved one or myself. Please remember that I am espousing this position, because I have become so frustrated with attempting to understand how Republicans, or more particularly, MAGA folks think.
Let me share this thought with you: in my lifetime, I have generally seen Presidential Candidates who are either Lawyers or Business people. Would you agree with that assessment? Think Obama v Romney, or, Bush v Gore (ouch, still hurts). In any case, generally speaking, the business person is focused on results; the lawyer on process. The successful candidate, usually (not recently), moderates their focus and addresses both.
I am an Attorney who own his own Law Firm. I do as much pro bono and low-bono as I can, but, if I do too much, I cannot pay the bills. I enjoy working for well-to-do Clients, but regularly refuse to serve certain of them who are not trying to do good things in the world, if you know what I mean.
So, I guess what I am saying here is this: our Country has always esteemed the highest values, but sometimes in the name of maintenance, it strays from them. The question on Trump’s immigration “policy” (emphasis on the quotation marks here), I suppose, is: does the goal justify the means? In my personal opinion, it cannot and does not. I am horrified by the lack of due process, down to the fiber of my being. But, I imagine an argument can be made that it does, perhaps, by someone who truly believes it. That person is not me. But, I hope you and others who have commented, have found it a worthwhile exercise to engage in this dialectic without any name-calling - - I’ll disregard the “troll” comment. Of course, if you have additional comment, I am open to listen. But, at this point, I am satisfied (pun intended) with the results of this experiment: that we as a society can still engage in civil discourse.
How about a “like” in the name of Democracy - - and, yes, that’s a capital “D”….