The gig is up: Sanctuary cities and the clash over immigration enforcement

(Natural News)—In an era of heightened tensions over immigration, the actions of one police chief in a small California city have reignited a national debate about the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. Mammoth Lakes Police Chief Daniel Casabian has insisted that his department will not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from federal authorities and conservative media outlets. The controversy underscores the broader conflict between sanctuary city policies and federal immigration enforcement efforts, with critics arguing that such policies threaten national security, public safety, and the rule of law.

The concept of sanctuary cities, which refuse to enforce federal immigration laws or cooperate with ICE, has been a contentious issue for decades. Proponents argue that such policies foster trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, allowing for more effective crime prevention and resolution. However, this facade of compassion has worn off and it has become clear that sanctuary cities undermine national security by shielding illegal immigrants — some of whom have committed violent crimes — from deportation.

In Mammoth Lakes, Chief Casabian’s recent statement on the police department’s Facebook page laid out his position clearly: “Our Agency does not enforce Federal Law, and we do not inquire about the legal status of anyone that we encounter. Our priority is the public safety of our community.” This stance aligns with the CPCA’s broader policy, which states that local law enforcement should focus on criminal acts rather than immigration status.

However, federal authorities, led by Border Czar Tom Homan, have made it clear that they will not tolerate such defiance. Homan has threatened legal action against law enforcement officials and local politicians who obstruct ICE operations. His enforcement efforts, which began shortly after President Trump took office, have already resulted in the arrest of hundreds of undocumented immigrants, including individuals with criminal records.

Federal and local law enforcement are clashing in some Democratic-ran cities

The conflict between federal immigration enforcement and sanctuary city policies raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between local and federal governments. Supporters of sanctuary cities, such as Chief Casabian, argue that local authorities should not be compelled to participate in federal immigration enforcement. They contend that this would erode public trust in law enforcement and hinder efforts to combat crime.

On the other hand, sanctuary cities enable illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and human smuggling, all of which threaten public safety and national security. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has reported that thousands of undocumented immigrants, including those with criminal records, remain at large in the United States. Many of these individuals have been linked to violent crimes, such as rape, murder, and human trafficking, which have devastated families and communities.

The case of Mammoth Lakes illustrates the broader challenges faced by law enforcement in navigating these competing priorities. Chief Casabian’s decision to prioritize local safety over federal immigration enforcement has drawn both praise and condemnation, with some viewing it as a bold stand for community trust and others labeling it as a dangerous abdication of responsibility.

The controversy surrounding Mammoth Lakes Police Chief Daniel Casabian and sanctuary city policies highlights the deep divisions in American society over immigration and the rule of law. While some view these policies as a necessary safeguard for vulnerable communities, others see them as a threat to national security and public safety.

A nation that fails to enforce its borders risks becoming a magnet for crime, terrorism and chaos. The story of Chief Casabian and the sanctuary city movement serves as a stark reminder that the lines between law enforcement, national security and civil liberties are often deeply intertwined. In the end, the question remains: Can a nation without borders truly remain free?

Sources include:

• LawEnforcementToday.com
• Facebook.com
• LawEnforcementToday.com

Just 14% of Chicagoans view the mayor favorably, according to the Illinois Policy Institute’s Lincoln Poll. M3 Strategies surveyed 798 registered voters in Chicago from Jan. 21 to 23: 79.9% said they had an unfavorable opinion of Johnson, including 65% saying, “very unfavorable.”

Johnson’s 14% approval rating is lower than the lowest approval rating recorded by his recent predecessors. Rahm Emanuel and Lori Lightfoot had ratings as low as 27% late in their respective tenures.

According to the poll, voters’ top concerns were crime (48%), high taxes (33%), and city governance (30%).

Johnson was asked at a City Hall media briefing Tuesday about a remark he made last month that it was not his job to find criminal aliens.

“That is deportation policy that is set by the federal government, and we will not interfere with that. That aspect, that is the job of the federal government to deport,” Johnson said.

The mayor said police would fight crime without acting as federal agents.

“There’s a clear separation there. That’s the only thing that this [sanctuary city] ordinance essentially lays out, so it’s not a matter of the police department not going after violent criminals,” Johnson said.

Last week, the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee launched an investigation into sanctuary jurisdictions and the impact of their policies on public safety and federal immigration enforcement.

Johnson and three other Democratic mayors were asked for documents and communications related to their cities’ sanctuary policies.

The mayor’s corporate counsel, Mary Richardson-Lowry, addressed the House committee’s request Tuesday.

“With respect to the oversight committee’s invitation, we are in active discussions with them relative to the content of that invitation,” Richardson-Lowry said.

The mayor said the city’s sanctuary city status has not changed with the Trump administration in Washington D.C.

Last year, voters rejected Johnson’s proposed Bring Chicago Home real estate transfer tax. The mayor defended the “mansion tax” proposal Tuesday but did not commit to trying it again.

“Well, look, that’s not my decision alone. I’m just saying it’s good public policy,” Johnson said.

The Bring Chicago Home initiative would have raised the transfer tax on sellers of properties worth a million dollars or more with the stated purpose of addressing homelessness. Critics say the tax will drive more business owners out of the city.

Chicago is facing a projected $1 billion budget deficit this year. On Tuesday, the mayor repeated his earlier statements that the city “needs revenue.”

Kevin Bessler contributed to this story.

In 2017 Trump’s cabinet confirmations took a decidedly swampy turn and his administration was overrun with Neo-Cons and banking elites. I criticized this outcome harshly at the time. However, I was willing to acknowledge a reasonable explanation – That Trump was being misled by advisers with ulterior motives. After all, every president has around 4000 positions to fill in their administration and most of them will defer that duty to their advisers.

Trump would go on to admit in multiple interviews that he had trusted his inner circle too much and made mistakes in choosing his cabinet. They had sabotaged his efforts.

His second term is so far a 180 degree flip from his first, and Trump’s shift in focus is evident. Like most liberty movement conservatives I’ll reserve judgment.  Trump’s presidency will likely be the most scrutinized in recent history, not only by his political opponents but by those who supported him.  We’ll be scrutinizing everything he does with primary attention on his policy efforts. “Will he take action?” is the question everyone is asking.

The answer has been a resounding “yes”. The illegal immigration issue is of course one of the most pressing crises of our era and I would consider Trump fulfilling his promise to counter the threat a bare minimum. He has to, or he loses his entire base of support and the country falls apart at the same time. Trump’s swift move to execute mass deportations is redeeming.

For decades conservatives and right leaning independents have been disillusioned with the Republican Party because of their incessant inaction. When leftists take power in government they waste no time exploiting every advantage – The only thing that stops them from total dominance is patriot culture and the fact that 50 million+ Americans are heavily armed. When the GOP takes power they change very little.

One factor that truly sets the Trump Administration apart from all other modern Republican Presidencies is the acknowledgment of the culture war. The leftists have been waging this war for at least 50 years and GOP leaders have mostly dismissed it as trivial compared to politics. It’s the reason why we came within a razor’s edge of total moral relativism and degeneracy under the Biden Administration. The left has been normalizing the hatred of basic American principles for generations.

Part of that effort has been the introduction of open borders ideology and mass illegal immigration. I consider this a kind of “final stage” of the leftist/globalist agenda – If you can demonize western culture to the point of self hatred, then people won’t care when you saturate the west with third-world migrants and put the final nail in the coffin.

Illegal aliens don’t want to assimilate, they want to pillage and if possible to conquer.  This is why you see hundreds of Mexican flags flying at every migrant protest march; they have no interest in becoming American, they only want access to American wealth.  They look at the US citizenry as rubes and easy targets for plunder.

There is also the danger of cultural replacement.  Many migrants from Latin American identify with the Marxist “La Raza” ideology, which asserts that America is “stolen land” that they have an ethnic claim to.  The globalists know this and use mass migration as a weapon, opening the gates and making it easy for the invasion to happen.  As we have seen in Europe and the UK, migrant hordes are like a mercenary army perfect for oppressing native citizens and preventing future rebellion against multicultural erasure.

The core of this process is to incentivize migrants with subsidies and jobs. And this lead me to the greater dilemma of the border crisis – Locking down the border is not so hard, but getting rid of the tens-of-millions of illegals that are already in the country is much more difficult.  Making sure they don’t come back is also a conundrum.

As we’ve seen in the first weeks of Trump’s presidency, establishment Democrats are intent on interfering with deportations in any way they can (all the future power of leftists requires forced immigration to the US from socialist leaning countries). By extension, leftist activists will seek to disrupt deportation efforts using civil unrest (when the weather warms up these goblins will come out in droves, bank on it).

On top of the internal sabotage, there are many foreign governments that will desperately try to obstruct the return of so many unwanted citizens. Keep in mind that the US is seen by these governments as a dumping ground for their refuse. America is a steam valve to release the pressure so that these countries can get rid of their criminals, revolutionaries and those in poverty.

Mexico, Columbia, Haiti and others continue to argue that they can’t take their own people back because it would lead to “societal catastrophe”. Why? Because these governments have been knowingly sweeping their problem children under the rug for years, and America is the rug.

At the current rate of deportations (around 1500 per day) we are looking at around 500,000 per year. At least 10 million illegals are projected to have entered the US under Biden’s watch, and that’s not counting the millions that were in the US previously. Estimates indicate that 16 million to 20 million illegals are living in America today. To expedite matters, illegals will have to be convinced to self deport.

There is evidence that this is happening to some extent. Border stations have seen an uptick in outgoing traffic into Mexico and border encounters have slowed (Texas has played a big part in the border slowdown with their Operation Lone Star). But how could the US pressure a majority of aliens to self deport and never come back?

Here are a few surefire methods…

Increased Penalties For Businesses That Hire Illegals

This is common sense, but a large part of mass immigration depends on access to the US jobs market. Our government has been turning a blind eye to low-wage migrant labor for a long time and usually, if caught, businesses will only be fined a few hundred dollars for each migrant they employ. The savings on wages make it worth the risk.

Federal fines should be increased greatly, changing the cost benefit ratio and making it less enticing for companies to gamble on illegal migrant labor. If companies stop hiring migrants then most aliens will leave the US overnight.

If an industry desperately needs foreign labor then they can hire people with work visas. The process could be streamlined for certain jobs, but there has to be PROOF that these industries cannot find American workers to fill those positions. Furthermore, migrants should not be allowed to work in the US for greatly reduced wages (this drives down wages for Americans). Companies should be required to pay the same wage they would normally pay an American citizen of equivalent skill and experience.

Permanently Cut All Government Welfare Subsidies For Asylum Seekers

A general cancellation of amnesty and “catch and release” policies might make this action a moot point, but under the Biden Administration most migrants had access to a list of welfare subsidies. These subsidies and various migrant programs are projected to cost American taxpayers over $150 billion dollars per year. This isn’t counting state and city expenditures on illegals (New York City alone spent over $5 billion on migrants in 2024).

Housing programs under HUD do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants and often migrants will receive preferential treatment by landlords because of guaranteed government payouts and tax incentives. This has helped to exacerbate the housing crisis in the US, driving up rent prices to extreme levels.

Shut Down NGOs Engaged In Supporting Illegal Immigration

The shut down of the USAID department is a good start in the battle against rogue NGOs, but there’s a lot more to be done.  Globalist NGOs are the worst perpetrators behind mass immigration movements and many use religious organizations as a front (the female Bishop who famously woke-lectured Trump at a church service held after his inauguration is coincidentally a recipient of NGO cash in exchange for helping illegal immigrants into the US).

These groups are very difficult to legally obstruct or punish for such actions. One thing Trump can do is take away the 501C3 tax exemption status of NGOs involved in encouraging mass immigration to the US; these efforts are entirely political in nature, which negates tax exemption. NGOs are also subject to lawsuits.

Ultimately the NGO problem needs to be addressed on a larger scale and as a country we need to examine the harm some of these organizations are doing. In many cases international NGO operations spend millions in foreign countries to entice migrants to cross the border, but they also run numerous programs to support migrants that are already in the US, mostly through litigation and interference with deportations.  Getting rid of them would go a long way in keeping illegals out of the country.

Cut Off Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities

Trump has already threatened this response in light of Democrat resistance to deportations, but action may need to be taken sooner rather than later. The problem is that city governments often use federal dollars as a slush fund to fill the coffers of their migrant programs. Most cities do not have the funds to subsidize migrants on their own for very long, not without making extensive cuts to other parts of their budget.

Democrats claim cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities violates the underlying principle of the Tenth Amendment, which protects states and localities from federal overreach. This is a disingenuous argument – Cities are not entitled under the 10^th Amendment to federal funds without restrictions or requirements. The Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution has been widely recognized as providing the federal government with the legal authority to offer federal grant funds to states and localities that are contingent on the recipients engaging in, or refraining from, certain activities.

There are legal restriction on the federal government as well in terms of how they refuse funds, but generally speaking cities and states cannot use federal funds to support people breaking federal law. The Constitution also specifically gives the federal government broad powers over border enforcement. Cities and states are not allowed to harbor foreign threats in the US in violation of border law. Without federal funds cash will dry up quickly in sanctuary cities and migrants will leave on their own.

Use “Griefing” Deportations For Repeat Offenders

There’s an endless supply of migrants boasting on social media this past week that even if they are deported they will simply pop right back across the border with little effort.  Since border encounters have plummeted significantly, these claims might just be bluster.  That said, what should the US do about repeat offenders?

Putting them in jail for months or years would cost taxpayers more money than deportations would.  We could take away their future ability to gain citizenship, but this assumes that they care.  My suggestion?  What if we use a different method – what the kids call “griefing”.

In other words, we make the lives of repeat offenders as difficult as possible.  For example, why does border patrol keep transporting migrants to cities directly across the national line where they can easily come right back?  If a repeat illegal is captured, why not put them on a plane and drop them off as far away from the border as possible (Mexico is 3000 miles long) and let them figure out how to get home?  There’s also the option of slowing down their processing for weeks, making them wait in lockup instead of sending them back quickly.  Do this for a year and watch the the number of returning illegals drop to zero.

The Economic Time Table

In order to have a dramatic effect on price inflation in the US many millions of migrants will have to be removed in a short period of time. To save the housing market and cut product costs, demand has to be diminished and the fastest way to do that is boot out the people that shouldn’t be here. Deportations through ICE are a good start, but they are slow. Even with the expansion of agents and enforcement the only way to achieve visible results is to make self-deportation an imperative for illegals.

Most migrants will have to leave on their own. It saves the taxpayer a lot of money in deportation costs, it saves time on arrests and makes it easier for everyone to get on with the process of making America better for Americans.

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

President Donald J. Trump announced on Truth Social that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has agreed to send 10,000 troops to the border to help stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal aliens. This comes less than a day before his 25% tariffs are scheduled to go into effect.

As a result of this action by Mexico, President Trump has agreed to pause the tariffs for one month. As he noted:

I just spoke with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico. It was a very friendly conversation wherein she agreed to immediately supply 10,000 Mexican Soldiers on the Border separating Mexico and the United States. These soldiers will be specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country. We further agreed to immediately pause the anticipated tariffs for a one month period during which we will have negotiations headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and high-level Representatives of Mexico. I look forward to participating in those negotiations, with President Sheinbaum, as we attempt to achieve a “deal” between our two Countries.

That didn’t take long.

China’s Xi Jinping is also rumored to be prepared to discuss the 10% tariffs against his nation. Canada, the other recipient of the 25% tariffs for their inaction at our northern border, appears to be throwing a “hissy fit,” according to Jeff Crouere.

On Sunday, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, was interviewed on CNN. She said that Canadians are “furious” at President Trump because he challenged their “sovereignty.”

An example of the fury could be heard at the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa. Before the NHL match between the Minnesota Wild and the Ottawa Senators, the national anthem of both countries was performed. Sadly, at the end of “The Star-Spangled Banner” the Ottawa fans engaged in raucous booing.

In an appeal to her fellow Canadians, Freeland has called for a “boycott” of American products and “100% tariffs” on American goods. She said Trump was “beating up on Canada” and as a result, her country will respond with “total strength, total unity.”

Hopefully, Canada will come to its senses and commit to the reasonable expectations that President Trump is setting for them.

This story is developing and will be updated when more information is known.

“It is not unprecedented for the military to be called in [to the border] when the capacity of our law enforcement agencies is exceeded, and that’s almost certainly the case now,” said Greenway, director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.

In a new Heritage report titled, “How the President Can Use the U.S. Military to Confront the Catastrophic Threat at the Border with Mexico,” Greenway, who is also a former member of the National Security Council, Greenway breaks down the specific ways the military can step in to secure the border.

The military can help in three general capacities at the border, Greenway explains. First, the military can help with transportation and housing of illegal aliens in the deportation process. Second, the military can provide assistance with the physical security of the border through increased personnel, surveillance, and assistance in the construction of the border wall. And finally, the military can work outside of the U.S. with other countries to help them police their own borders more effectively.

“I think there’s a huge role for the military to play, and advise, equip, support, and assist our partners and allies south of the border,” he said. “The military is uniquely capable of doing that.”

Greenway joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss past cases in which the U.S. deployed the military to the U.S. border, and why it is an effective strategy for stopping the flood of illegal immigration.

During Trump’s first 9 days in office, after new border measures were implemented, there were an average of 126 daily encounters at the border vs. 2,087 per day during the last 2.5 weeks of the Biden administration.

As Rasmussen’s Mark Mitchell put it last week, “It’s like a switch was flipped.”

It's like a switch was flipped.

Source: @zerohedge pic.twitter.com/vBWT13UH3j

— Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen Reports (@Mark_R_Mitchell) January 24, 2025

During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to crack down on illegal immigration by continuing construction on the border wall, conducting the largest mass deportation in US history, slapping tariffs on Canada and Mexico until they control the situation from their end, and increasing penalties for illegal aliens.

To that end, there were more than 3,500 illegal immigrants who were arrested during Trump’s first week in office, including over 1,100 in a single day.

As American Greatness notes further, on Wednesday, shortly before signing the Laken Riley Act into law, the 45th and 47th President announced his intention to send 30,000 of the most dangerous criminal illegals to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Laken Riley Act, named after the 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was murdered by a Venezuelan illegal, is the first bill signed into law during President Trump’s second term. It gives federal immigration authorities broader power to arrest illegals who commit dangerous crimes, including drunk driving and assaulting police officers.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents made 956 arrests, according to an announcement from the agency. This figure has already outpaced the average daily ICE apprehension rate of the Biden administration in fiscal year 2024, which stood at roughly 310 daily arrests, according to figures previously released by the agency.

Deportation officers arrested numerous criminal migrants since President Donald Trump returned to office, including individuals tied to foreign gangs such as Tren de Aragua, a suspected terrorist and individuals convicted of sex crimes against children. The White House on Sunday showcased the arrest of a convicted child rapist, a man with suspected ties to ISIS and an MS-13 gang member wanted for murder.

ICE also announced a large-scale targeted operation in Chicago, a sanctuary city whose political leaders adamantly oppose the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda. (RELATED: US Military Set To Deploy More Than A Thousand Active Duty Troops To Southern Border, Reports Indicate)

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with federal partners, including the FBI, ATF, DEA, CBP and the U.S. Marshals Service, began conducting enhanced targeted operations today in Chicago to enforce U.S. immigration law and preserve public safety and national security by keeping potentially dangerous criminal aliens out of our communities,” the agency announced in a statement Sunday.

The 956 arrests are in addition to the roughly 1,300 ICE arrests border czar Tom Homan announced Thursday, putting the administration’s total immigration apprehensions over the week well above 2,000.

While the Trump White House is working to ramp up immigration arrests, it’s also orchestrating a more robust deportation operation.

Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, allowing him to utilize more resources to address the immigration crisis that began under the previous administration. Since that order, the White House has moved to deploy troops to the southern border and the Department of Defense has tapped military aircraft to help deportation operations.

ICE has eliminated so-called sensitive locations, public areas like schools or hospitals in which deportation officers were previously not allowed to conduct enforcement activities. The White House also expanded expedited removal — a policy that allows immigration enforcement officials to quickly remove illegal migrants from the U.S. by bypassing the immigration court process — from 100 miles within an international border to anywhere within the country.

The Trump administration also appears to be showcasing far less tolerance for recalcitrant countries — foreign governments that refuse to accept their deported citizens back from the U.S.

When the president of Colombia initially refused to accept deportation flights over the weekend, alleging mistreatment of his citizens, Trump immediately responded with threats of steep tariffs against all imported Colombian goods. Under pressure, Colombian President Gustavo Petro immediately capitulated, with his office not only declaring that his government would accept the deportees, but also offered his presidential plane to facilitate their return.

While ICE apprehensions and deportations tick up, the rates remain small in scope to the sheer level of illegal immigration experienced during the height of the border crisis under the Biden administration. There were an average of roughly 5,600 daily encounters with Border Patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border during fiscal year 2023, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Starting early Saturday morning, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted pre-dawn raids as part of a broader West Coast initiative aimed at deporting criminal migrants. These operations are expected to occur seven days a week, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The strategy appears to sidestep areas affected by recent wildfires, focusing instead on neighborhoods with a high concentration of undocumented immigrants with criminal records. This move signifies a clear intensification of President Trump’s campaign promise to deport those who have committed crimes within the U.S.

Local officials have expressed their intent to resist these federal actions, highlighting the tension between federal immigration enforcement and local sanctuary city policies. However, the specifics of how they plan to oppose these raids remain unclear.

The expansion into Los Angeles follows similar operations in other major U.S. cities, with Trump’s administration emphasizing the removal of migrants with criminal backgrounds. This has sparked widespread debate regarding immigration policy, sanctuary cities, and the balance between public safety and civil rights.

As these operations continue, the community’s response and the legal challenges that might arise will be closely watched, potentially setting precedents for future immigration enforcement actions across the country.

Considering the early success and steadfastness of both President Trump and Border Czar Tom Homan, it is unlikely that leftist reactions in sanctuary cities will dissuade them from their mission.

Article generated from legacy media reports.

According to a Reuters report, the shelters currently under construction should be finished within days and will be able to house thousands of individuals deported from the United States.

Mexico is scrambling to build migrant tent cities as part of an “unprecedented” response in anticipation of Trump’s mass deportations. pic.twitter.com/TDXBNtsPi3

— Ben Kew (@ben_kew) January 24, 2025

Municipal official Enrique described the efforts as “unprecedented.”

In a news release posted on the official Mexican government website, authorities outlined their plans in full detail:

During President Claudia Sheinbaum’s People’s Conference at the National Palace, Secretary of the Interior Rosa Icela Rodríguez assured that the federal government is ready to warmly welcome Mexican nationals with humanity, dignity, and opportunities for a decent life in their home country.

She outlined the three components of the Effective Reception Strategy, MEXICO WELCOMES YOU:

– Consular assistance and protection, with the support of United Nations agencies and organisations to guarantee the rights of returning nationals.

– Reception and support in the six border states, where attention centres will be established.

– Reintegration, addressing basic needs through social service campaigns, as well as inclusion in employment opportunities and welfare programmes.

She detailed that the attention centres will be located in municipalities adjacent to the 11 points through which Mexican nationals return. These centres will provide essential services such as electricity, water, internet, sewage, and communication infrastructure. […]

— Read More: www.thegatewaypundit.com

Photos were released showing individuals boarding military aircraft for these deportation flights, though specifics on who was being deported and the locations were not immediately disclosed. The announcement comes amidst reports from ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations stating that over 460 illegal immigrants, with criminal backgrounds ranging from sexual assault to drug offenses, were arrested in a 33-hour span between January 21 and January 22, 2025.

This initiative aligns with Trump’s campaign promises to enact the largest deportation operation in American history if re-elected, aiming to deport millions of those without legal permission to reside in the U.S. However, experts from the University of Southern California (USC) have highlighted significant legal, logistical, and financial challenges associated with such an operation. They note that previous deportations under Trump’s first term never exceeded 350,000 annually, far from the millions he has pledged to deport, due to constraints in manpower, cooperation from local law enforcement, and the sheer scale of the undocumented population, estimated at around 11 million.

The policy has stirred a mix of support and criticism. Supporters on social platforms laud the action as a necessary step towards securing the country, while critics warn of the human and economic costs, including the potential for family separations and disruptions to communities.

The administration’s move also recalls past policies, like the “Remain in Mexico” program, and indicates a possible return to expedited removals and other restrictive measures to control immigration. These actions could face legal challenges, as previous similar policies have, with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) preparing for potential court battles over the legality and ethics of such mass deportations.

The Trump administration’s swift actions on immigration policy underscore a continuation of his first-term agenda, now with potentially more aggressive implementation, aiming to make an immediate impact on border control and internal immigration enforcement.

Article generated from corporate media reports.