Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy has provided a closer look at Donald Trump’s plans for a sweeping deportation initiative, which he describes as the largest in US history. In a recent interview, Ramaswamy defended the proposal’s feasibility and outlined initial steps to bring it to life.
Targeting Recent Migrants and Criminal Records
Ramaswamy stated that Trump’s plan would focus on deporting millions of undocumented individuals, estimating between 11 and 20 million. Priority would be given to those who entered the country in the past two years, labelled by Ramaswamy as “illegal migrants who have no place in this country.” He also highlighted a particular focus on deporting individuals with criminal records.
Cutting Funding to Sanctuary Cities
Ramaswamy explained that the plan includes cutting all government funding that currently benefits undocumented immigrants, including federal aid to sanctuary cities. By limiting financial support, he suggested, many undocumented individuals would choose “self-deportation” as access to welfare and other support is restricted, potentially leading to a significant reduction in their numbers.
Linking Immigration Reform to National Debt
Trump’s proposal aligns with ongoing debates around government spending, with Ramaswamy positioning it as part of a larger strategy to reduce the national debt, now at $34 trillion. “Using taxpayer money to subsidise illegal migration is offensive,” he stated, adding that the policy respects “the dignity of Americans already here.”
A Polarising Issue Among Voters
Trump’s commitment to large-scale deportations is reinforced by his running mate, JD Vance, who suggests the plan could result in the deportation of up to one million people annually. Trump’s immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, has proposed that National Guard troops from supportive states could help in these efforts. Voters remain divided: Edison Research exit polls show that while 39% support deporting most undocumented immigrants, 56% favour allowing them to apply for legal status.
Comparisons to Previous Administrations
Scaling up deportations was challenging during Trump’s first term. Despite this, recent data indicates that President Biden deported more individuals in fiscal year 2023 than Trump did in any single year of his presidency. Experts estimate that deporting 13 million people would require a significant increase in officers, detention facilities, and immigration judges and could cost up to $968 billion over a decade.
Expected Legal Pushback
Organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are preparing to challenge Trump’s plan if implemented. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who has previously challenged Trump’s immigration policies, revealed that more than 15 lawyers specialising in immigration law are readying resources to fight the new policies in court.
Strengthening Support from Federal Agencies
Trump’s second term could involve a stronger approach from the State Department, aimed at facilitating the repatriation of deported individuals. Supporters argue that strategic appointees in the State Department will play a key role. Additionally, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a branch of ICE focused on transnational crime, may also be called on to shift resources toward immigration enforcement.
Using the National Guard and Expanding Resources
Miller has suggested that states willing to cooperate may deploy National Guard troops to assist in deportations, especially in areas resistant to these policies. Trump’s team also plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, allowing for the swift deportation of alleged gang members. This move could prompt legal challenges, but proponents believe it is a powerful tool for expediting deportations.
The Alien Enemies Act: An Old Law in a New Role
The Alien Enemies Act, a component of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, gives the president authority to detain or deport nationals from hostile countries during wartime. Historically used during conflicts like the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, Trump’s plan to apply this act to undocumented migration has stirred debate over its constitutional and ethical implications.
Constitutional and Ethical Concerns
Legal experts warn that invoking the Alien Enemies Act for immigration purposes raises significant constitutional questions. The Act traditionally requires either a formal declaration of war or an imminent threat to US territory. Extending it to undocumented migration raises concerns about overreach, with critics advising caution against using wartime authority for immigration enforcement.
Efforts to Repeal the Alien Enemies Act
Some members of Congress have introduced a repeal bill, the Neighbours Not Enemies Act, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Mazie Hirono. They argue that current immigration, intelligence, and criminal laws already address national security concerns, making the Alien Enemies Act outdated and potentially detrimental to civil liberties.
Potential Legal and Ethical Challenges Ahead
With modern legal frameworks in place, critics argue that the Alien Enemies Act is unnecessary for today’s immigration challenges. Deploying it for non-military purposes would shift its role and risk discrimination claims. As Trump’s plan unfolds, it faces legal, financial, and societal hurdles, with anticipated costs and consequences that could affect communities across the country.
NEW: @VivekGRamaswamy assures an incredulous Jon Karl that Trump is very serious about deporting illegals:
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 10, 2024
"Donald Trump's campaign promise was the largest mass deportation in American history. And he's going to keep that promise."
Vivek lays it out in surgical, methodical… pic.twitter.com/9BcQMcRoqE
Targeting Recent Migrants and Criminal Records
Ramaswamy stated that Trump’s plan would focus on deporting millions of undocumented individuals, estimating between 11 and 20 million. Priority would be given to those who entered the country in the past two years, labelled by Ramaswamy as “illegal migrants who have no place in this country.” He also highlighted a particular focus on deporting individuals with criminal records.
Cutting Funding to Sanctuary Cities
Ramaswamy explained that the plan includes cutting all government funding that currently benefits undocumented immigrants, including federal aid to sanctuary cities. By limiting financial support, he suggested, many undocumented individuals would choose “self-deportation” as access to welfare and other support is restricted, potentially leading to a significant reduction in their numbers.
Linking Immigration Reform to National Debt
Trump’s proposal aligns with ongoing debates around government spending, with Ramaswamy positioning it as part of a larger strategy to reduce the national debt, now at $34 trillion. “Using taxpayer money to subsidise illegal migration is offensive,” he stated, adding that the policy respects “the dignity of Americans already here.”
A Polarising Issue Among Voters
Trump’s commitment to large-scale deportations is reinforced by his running mate, JD Vance, who suggests the plan could result in the deportation of up to one million people annually. Trump’s immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, has proposed that National Guard troops from supportive states could help in these efforts. Voters remain divided: Edison Research exit polls show that while 39% support deporting most undocumented immigrants, 56% favour allowing them to apply for legal status.
Comparisons to Previous Administrations
Scaling up deportations was challenging during Trump’s first term. Despite this, recent data indicates that President Biden deported more individuals in fiscal year 2023 than Trump did in any single year of his presidency. Experts estimate that deporting 13 million people would require a significant increase in officers, detention facilities, and immigration judges and could cost up to $968 billion over a decade.
Expected Legal Pushback
Organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are preparing to challenge Trump’s plan if implemented. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who has previously challenged Trump’s immigration policies, revealed that more than 15 lawyers specialising in immigration law are readying resources to fight the new policies in court.
Strengthening Support from Federal Agencies
Trump’s second term could involve a stronger approach from the State Department, aimed at facilitating the repatriation of deported individuals. Supporters argue that strategic appointees in the State Department will play a key role. Additionally, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a branch of ICE focused on transnational crime, may also be called on to shift resources toward immigration enforcement.
Using the National Guard and Expanding Resources
Miller has suggested that states willing to cooperate may deploy National Guard troops to assist in deportations, especially in areas resistant to these policies. Trump’s team also plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, allowing for the swift deportation of alleged gang members. This move could prompt legal challenges, but proponents believe it is a powerful tool for expediting deportations.
The Alien Enemies Act: An Old Law in a New Role
The Alien Enemies Act, a component of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, gives the president authority to detain or deport nationals from hostile countries during wartime. Historically used during conflicts like the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, Trump’s plan to apply this act to undocumented migration has stirred debate over its constitutional and ethical implications.
Constitutional and Ethical Concerns
Legal experts warn that invoking the Alien Enemies Act for immigration purposes raises significant constitutional questions. The Act traditionally requires either a formal declaration of war or an imminent threat to US territory. Extending it to undocumented migration raises concerns about overreach, with critics advising caution against using wartime authority for immigration enforcement.
Efforts to Repeal the Alien Enemies Act
Some members of Congress have introduced a repeal bill, the Neighbours Not Enemies Act, led by Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Mazie Hirono. They argue that current immigration, intelligence, and criminal laws already address national security concerns, making the Alien Enemies Act outdated and potentially detrimental to civil liberties.
Potential Legal and Ethical Challenges Ahead
With modern legal frameworks in place, critics argue that the Alien Enemies Act is unnecessary for today’s immigration challenges. Deploying it for non-military purposes would shift its role and risk discrimination claims. As Trump’s plan unfolds, it faces legal, financial, and societal hurdles, with anticipated costs and consequences that could affect communities across the country.
You may also like
Jio-Hotstar Dispute Heats Up as New Website "Jiostar.com" Emerges with "Coming Soon" Teaser
I'm A Celebrity's Tulisa ready to end two-year celibacy vow as she 'eyes up jungle romance'
'Only $1M?' Iraqi PM's adviser suspected of bribe-taking
Sri Lanka Appoint Neil McKenzie As Consultant Coach For South Africa Tests
Doctor says 'drink one glass before bed' to detox your liver and relieve coughs and colds
