Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Protests based on the “California Values ​​Act” which limits state cooperation with federal immigration authorities are underway...

Hundreds of people demonstrated around the California Capitol on Monday to urge the Legislature to try to stop Trump’s mass deportation plans. They carried banners that said “Not one cent for mass deportation” and “MAGA out of California.”

Deportation Resistance

Gateway Hispanic reports States Resist Trump’s Mass Deportation Plans: California, New York, Maryland and Colorado Push Back

In response to former President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans, states like California and New York have been vocal in their opposition, asserting their authority to protect immigrant communities from federal enforcement.

California has long been at the forefront of this resistance. Under Senator Alex Padilla and Governor Gavin Newsom, the state has emphasized its commitment to shielding immigrants, particularly through Senate Bill 54, the “California Values ​​Act,” which limits state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Federal Clash

The conflict has raised significant questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments. Trump’s mass deportation agenda, which seeks to ramp up enforcement, clashes with the policies of these states that prioritize immigrant welfare. California and New York argue that they should have the discretion to create policies that reflect their values ​​of inclusion and protection for all residents, including undocumented immigrants.

California and New York can argue all they want, but Federal law trumps state law on this issue.

Eagle Pass, Texas Revisited

On January 12, 2024, I discussed Texas National Guard Seizes Eagle Pass Park to Stop Illegal Immigration

Over the objection of the Eagle Pass mayor, governor Abbott seized a public park that borders the Rio Grande river.

Governor Abbott placed 29 miles of razor wire only to have the Biden administration remove the wire.

On January 22, I commented Texas Showdown, Supreme Court Lets Feds Cut Abbott’s Razor Wire

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the Biden Administration. Federal authorities will cut the razor wire and open the illegal immigration floodgates.

But in an appeals ruling on November 28, a US appeals court ruled Texas has right to build razor wire along border at Eagle Pass.

This seems more than a bit bizarre that an appeals court apparently overrules the Supreme Court.

But it appears Texas tried again with a new angle based on safeguarding property as opposed to setting immigration policy.

CBS Austin reports U.S. appeals court rules Texas has right to build razor wire along border at Eagle Pass.

In its official ruling, the court says Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction because the state is seeking only to safeguard its property — not “regulate” Border Patrol.

The ruling also affirms Texas’ right to build wired fences for immigration enforcement.

Be Careful of What You Wish

The first part of the ruling above is narrow and seems correct. The second paragraph screams nonsense.

More accurately, it was nonsense when the Federal government disagreed.

Immigration policy belongs at the federal level. We do not want California, Illinois, or New York setting their own immigration policies. I thought so under Biden, and I do so now. Unlike others, I am consistent.

Texas has no more right to set immigration policy than California. However, Texas should be able to safeguard its property.

The distinction is important.

Of course, I was blasted by hypocrites who wanted Texas to set immigration policy but now don’t want California to do the same.

The Texas Tribune comments:

“It was shocking to me that the federal government would go out of their way to cut razor wire to allow illegals to cross when we’re just trying to protect our own land,” Paxton said during a Wednesday evening appearance on Newsmax. “This wasn’t their land. This was our land, our private property. It had nothing due to the federal government. So this is a good win for Texas, a good win for the country, that this court recognized our ability to protect our land.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Should I Just Kiss My Illegal Immigrant Husband Goodbye?

That’s the question the Wall Street Journal asks today in its post Migrants Prepare for Mass Deportation

Immigrants without legal status or in mixed-status families are avoiding going out in public, scrambling to apply for asylum and attending legal workshops ahead of Donald Trump’s return to power, fearful they will be swept up in the president-elect’s promised mass-deportation campaign.

“There is a lot of fear, a lot of concern,” said Lizeth Chacón, director of Workers Defense Project, in Texas. “There’s so much our community needs to plan for.”

Yvonne Sanchez, a stay-at-home mother in the Milwaukee suburbs, has started taking steps to prepare her five children should authorities arrest her husband, who is a Mexican immigrant in the country illegally and the family’s sole breadwinner.

Her husband has worked in the U.S. for nearly three decades, since he was 16 years old. Although Sanchez is a U.S. citizen, and the couple has been married for 13 years, she can’t sponsor her husband for a green card—which would grant him permanent U.S. residency—because he crossed into the country illegally. That would make him particularly vulnerable in a mass-deportation effort.

Sanchez wondered recently, “should I just kiss my husband goodbye? How far is this going to go?”

“I’m advising folks, make sure your affairs are in order,” said Lily Axelrod, an immigration attorney in Memphis, Tenn. “If you have kids, make sure their guardianship and custody situations are in order if, in the worst-case scenario, you are detained.”

Roughly 860,000 immigrants are living in the U.S. with a form of deportation protection called Temporary Protected Status, granted to people whose countries are deemed too dangerous to return to. Trump has vowed not to renew those protections—granted to people from countries including Venezuela, Haiti and Honduras. The first set of protections, which covers 239,000 migrants from El Salvador who have lived in the U.S. since 2001, is due to expire in March.

Hundreds of thousands more have entered the country under the Biden administration with explicit permission, granted a form of temporary status called humanitarian parole. Trump has promised to take their protections away, too.

Kateryna Kyrylova came to the U.S. under Biden’s humanitarian program after fleeing the Russian siege of her home city of Mariupol, Ukraine, where a bomb killed her grandmother, her only living relative, and another leveled her apartment building. After searching in an online forum, Kyrylova found a retired military couple in San Antonio, willing to financially sponsor her.

“I understand that he wants this illegal immigration to stop—it’s a huge problem for the country,” Kyrylova said. “I just want him to give me a chance to stay and live my life.”

Things That Make Sense

Deporting everyone on the ICE list charged with violent crimes regardless of other circumstances

Deporting recent arrivals with no job and no sponsorship

Deporting Venezuelan gang members

Things That Make No Sense

Deporting spouses of US citizens

Deporting parents of US citizens

Deporting people who have been here for years, are employed, and are leading productive lives

Deporting people, especially Afghans who risked their lives aiding the US for years in holding off the Taliban and who would immediately be killed upon return

Deporting people without understanding the economic impacts

Deport Them All Foolishness

Deport them all is both economically stupid and morally unjust.

People who propose such policies are economic illiterates. Most of them just parrot whatever Trump says without question.

But, if Trump wants to unleash a massive round of inflation by creating work shortages, all he has to do is listen to alleged mandates “deport them all”.

October 1: What Would Trump’s Mass Deportation of Immigrants Cost?

The Middle Ground

We need sensible immigration policy. Mass deportation of 10 to 15 million immigrants (or even 6 million) is not sensible.

It’s a dirty, not-so-secret, fact that red state and blue state alike depend on migrant labor for crops and construction projects.

However, an open border is not the answer either. We can do without the crime and shelter costs that uncontrolled immigration bring. Flying Haitians (or anyone else) here is beyond ridiculous and begging for problems.

I suggest we deport criminals, have a reasonable amnesty program for hard working immigrants who have been here for years, and mostly close the border using the military if necessary.

Future immigration should be based on our genuine needs.

October 18: How Difficult Would it Be For Trump to Deport Millions of Immigrants?

Trump’s Pledge

“As soon as I take the oath of office, I will terminate every open border policy of the Biden administration and begin the largest deportation operation in American history.”

Trumpian Bravado vs Reality

Fortunately, despite his harsh rhetoric, Trump seems to understand some of the economic arguments.

On November 11, the Wall Street Journal commented on Trump’s Mass Deportation Promise

He has a mandate on the border and to deport criminals. But more than that could get ugly fast.

In short order, Mr. Trump will move to reinstate the border policies of his first term, such as Remain in Mexico, which seemed to work. Under that deal, migrants claiming asylum in the U.S. were sent back to Mexico while their cases were pending, which might take months or more. The idea was to break the incentives to game the system. Given the backlog of asylum cases, letting migrants into the U.S. while they wait is an enticement to come.

The political rub may be Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to conduct “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” How it goes depends on what Mr. Trump means. Speaking Monday on Fox News, Mr. Homan said the priority will be “public-safety threats and national-security threats,” as well as migrants who “had due process” and “their federal judge said ‘you must go home,’ and they didn’t.”

Good to hear, and add what Mr. Homan told “60 Minutes” last month. “It’s not going to be a mass sweep of neighborhoods,” he said. “It’s not going to be building concentration camps. I’ve read it all. It’s ridiculous.”

Instead he said Mr. Trump’s plan would involve “targeted arrests,” and eventually “worksite enforcement operations.” If officers making an arrest also find an undocumented grandma in the house, will they detain her? “It depends,” Mr. Homan said. “Let the judge decide.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers, including Mr. Miller, have talked about mass deportation in sweeping terms. But enforcement priorities are up to the President, and Mr. Trump has suggested he isn’t interested in illegal grandmothers.

When he visited the Journal recently, we asked about aliens who have been here for years, who might have U.S. citizen spouses and children. His response was that he wanted to help them.

“We have a lot of good people in this country, and we have to do something about it,” Mr. Trump said. “This has been going on for a long time. It’s a complicated subject.” He declined to specify whom he’d deport: “I don’t want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally.” Yet after stringent talk about deterrence, he ended with nuance: “There are some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too.”

Trump “We Have to Have the Heart, Too”

I 100 percent endorse that statement vs “deport them all” economic foolishness.

At the same time, I reject statements from California, Illinois, New York, and Colorado governors who think they can override federal law.

There is an easy middle ground that makes economic and moral sense.

Mish Five-Point Proposal

Seal the border

Reinstitute remain in Mexico

Deport the criminals, gang members, and those on ICE lists, defining criminal as something other than being here illegally

Help those who risk their lives assisting US policy in places like Afghanistan

Work out a sensible policy on case-by-case immigration

The New Home for Hispanics is the Republican Party

My proposal is based in part on  The Dignity Act , a bipartisan bill sponsored Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Florida).

For discussion, please see The New Home for Hispanics is the Republican Party

Click above to see an interview of Florida rep. Maria Salazar on Hispanics, Trump, and deportations.

Source link