Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump sold mass deportations as an economic bonanza. Here’s the truth.

Published

on

Trump sold mass deportations as an economic bonanza. Here’s the truth.

In a recent CBS News interview, incoming “border czar” Tom Homan was confronted with the question of whether the benefits of mass-deporting millions of undocumented immigrants were worth the cost. He responded with a question of his own, “What price do you put on national security?”

It’s a question that Americans might be asking pretty soon themselves. Is the price of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants worth the cost?

Undocumented immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump described crackdowns on illegal immigration as an essential tool for reducing crime, increasing employment and even lowering housing costs. Never mind that undocumented immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans and that the threat to national security from their presence in the country is minimal at best.

What was omitted from Trump’s anti-immigrant diatribes were the significant economic costs of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants — and the meager benefits.

According to one estimate from the pro-immigration advocacy group American Immigration Council, arresting, detaining and deporting the 13.3 million people who are either in the United States illegally — or are in the country temporarily without legal status — could cost $315 billion.

Trump campaign officials have said they don’t intend to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country immediately. Considering that the U.S. has never deported more than a half-million people in a single year, it would likely be impossible.

However, even deporting 1 million people yearly could cost nearly $90 billion. Apprehending immigrants, detaining them, court procedures and transporting them out of the country makes mass deportation a complicated and costly endeavor. Indeed, the estimated cost of deporting a single undocumented immigrant is estimated to run as high as $13,000.

Trump has said as recently as this week that he wants to enlist the military in his mass deportation plans, but that is easier said than done. Trump will have to jump through various legal hoops to overcome the impediments to using the uniformed military for domestic law enforcement. To achieve his anti-immigration goals, Trump will likely need Congress to authorize billions of dollars in new spending and hire tens of thousands of new government employees.

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that Trump is actually successful at getting the mass deportation project off the ground. In Trump’s words, there can be “no price tag” on such an effort. In reality, there is a price — and it will quickly be felt by American consumers.

To achieve his anti-immigration goals, Trump will likely need Congress to authorize billions of dollars in new spending.

Today, undocumented immigrants represent 5% of the U.S. workforce, and because two-thirds of them are between the ages of 25 and 54 (compared to less than 40% of the U.S.-born population), they are overrepresented in the workforce.

Many undocumented immigrants take on dangerous, menial and low-paying jobs. They are maids and housekeepers, construction laborers and agricultural workers. Indeed, a whopping 45 percent of agricultural workers are undocumented along with 15 percent of construction workers.

If millions of undocumented immigrants are forced to leave the country, these industries will bear the brunt — as will consumers.

Even if they aren’t deported, fear of getting caught up in workplace raids might push some of the undocumented to no longer show up for work. Either way, farms, construction companies and restaurants may find themselves short-staffed and unable to bring on new workers at a time of low unemployment.

Whatever the case, the labor disruptions will almost certainly lead to higher prices on everything from food to housing. And working class Americans — many of whom voted for Trump — will get hit the hardest.

Moreover, if restaurants are losing cooks and busboys and construction companies can’t find laborers, other native-born Americans such as waiters, construction managers, and architects will be directly affected as businesses shut down or take on fewer projects.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump said, “Americans are being squeezed out of the labor force, and their jobs are taken.” That’s not really true, since the undocumented often take on jobs that most native-born Americans simply don’t want. If Trump is successful at deporting millions of undocumented workers, his words will be prophetic; tens of thousands of Americans may soon find themselves out of work.

There are other indirect costs that many Americans who voted for mass deportation probably didn’t consider. For example, many undocumented immigrants work in child care. If they are forced to leave the country, the number of women in the labor force could decrease.

Then there are the tax implications. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid close to $50 billion in federal taxes and nearly $30 billion in state taxes. They also contributed more than $28 billion to Social Security and Medicare (even though they don’t benefit from those programs).

Migrants are also consumers. Removing them from the country means decreased spending, further undermining the economy.

By nearly any appreciable measure, immigration to the United States is a net economic positive, contributing to higher growth, greater productivity and even a reduced budget deficit.

Conversely, mass deportations will almost certainly lead to slower economic growth, increased unemployment and, ironically, higher inflation.

While the economic costs of mass deportation are significant, we cannot ignore the moral and humanitarian costs. Millions of undocumented Americans have native-born American children.

Migrants are also consumers. Removing them from the country means decreased spending, further undermining the economy.

Are Americans prepared to, again, watch parents ripped away from their children simply to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise? There are undocumented immigrants in practically every community in America. They are neighbors, friends, little league dads and soccer moms. Will Americans who voted for Trump be as blasé about the impact of mass deportation when it directly affects those they know personally?

Mass deportation might be popular on the campaign trail but in practice it is a recipe for an immediate and significant political backlash.

As much as many Trump voters say they wanted mass deportation, few seemed to understand or appreciate the ultimate consequences.

In short measure, they’re about to find out.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a Senior Fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending