Border security, immigration & deportations

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

Goldhedge said:
And it's a FAFO moment
Click to expand...

Nah. It's starting to look a bit like the 1960s. I remember the riots back then. So far these are kinda tame. No cities burning yet.

en.wikipedia.org

Ghetto riots (1964–1969) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Now the question is will these expand into full blown nationwide riots like the 60s? Only time will tell.

(The 60's were the golden age of short wave listening.)

Joe King said:
Yea. If it costs a $ trillion to remove them all, should we just throw in the towel and let them stay?
Click to expand...

I think we (the gov) should go about it differently.

______________________________________________

Edit to add: Major difference between the 60's and now is the media and internet. All sorts of live streaming now. And since everyone has a cell phone and internet access we're going to have all kinds of reporting and opinions to digest. Get out the popcorn.

Can't wait to hear what T has to say.

(I miss the golden age of shortwave.)
 
Last edited:

Trump faces a REBELLION Against the US Government​

Jun 8, 2025


11:48
 
searcher said:
Edit to add: Major difference between the 60's and now is the media and internet. All sorts of live streaming now. And since everyone has a cell phone and internet access we're going to have all kinds of reporting and opinions to digest. Get out the popcorn.
Click to expand...

Here's an example of my statement above:



lol Be all you can be............join the twitter army. lol
 




What we are seeing is the death rattle of the communist movement in America

They know once millions of illegal aliens are deported, Democrats will be out of power for decades after the 2030 census reapportionment

It will be a violent end, but they were always going to violent

Powerful post👇🏼



The real truth is this:

You’re watching the final phase of demographic weaponization collide with structural collapse and both sides know it.

The protests, the riots, the sanctuary city breakdowns - they’re not organic. They’re not reactive. They’re preemptive pressure campaigns triggered by the ruling class to preserve the only thing that keeps their machine alive: census-based political power.

Why?

Because congressional apportionment is based on population, not citizenship. Illegal migrants, whether voting or not, inflate House seats and electoral votes for blue strongholds like California and New York. If mass deportations and outbound domestic migration continue, the DNC doesn’t just lose votes - they lose federal control. Permanently.

That’s why you’re seeing chaos now.

Not because they’re losing culture—but because they’re losing representation math. The census is the battlefield. House seats are the prize. Every head counted equals political survival.

So they’re throwing everything at the wall:
•Media hysteria to stall deportations
•State-level obstruction to preserve “population counts”
•NGO-funded chaos to muddy the census map
•And protest optics to bait federal overreach and reframe it as oppression

It’s not about rights.
It’s about power.
And the census is the fuse.

They’re not just afraid of deportation.
They’re afraid of disempowerment - forever.
 
searcher said:
I think we (the gov) should go about it differently.
Click to expand...
Differently, how?


Gotta get these people outta here. Longer it takes, harder it'll be.

IMHO, if they can come in en mass, they can be deported en mass.
 
Joe King said:
Differently, how?
Click to expand...

Now this is just my opinion but it's how I'd prefer to see things done. Go after out right criminals first. When they get regular illegals have an arrest warrant and local cops with them. Take them to a court and do things legally. And no masks. Wear normal uniforms, have name tags on said uniforms, etc. Stop arresting and cuffing little kids. Do things right.

_______________________________________________

 
searcher said:
Now this is just my opinion but it's how I'd prefer to see things done. Go after out right criminals first. When they get regular illegals have an arrest warrant and local cops with them. Take them to a court and do things legally. And no masks. Wear normal uniforms, have name tags on said uniforms, etc. Stop arresting and cuffing little kids. Do things right.

_______________________________________________

Click to expand...

Most cities don't have the manpower to send cops along with ICE agents to make arrests.

Also, there are only about 700 immigration judges in the whole country. How is it even possible to give 20+ million illegal aliens a full trial?

Should be able to do it like a class action type thing, but in reverse to how it's normally done.



Personally, I believe the dems allowed all these people in knowing that it'd be all but impossible to hear their cases in any type of timely manner so that we'll end up having to keep them.




If it really costs a trillion $ to get rid of them, maybe we should offer $50,000 in cash to the first 20 million of them to voluntarily leave now and never come back.
....and then start building prisons for the rest of them that don't take the offer. Make the penalty for fake asylum claims be life in prison.
 
searcher said:
Now this is just my opinion but it's how I'd prefer to see things done. Go after out right criminals first. When they get regular illegals have an arrest warrant and local cops with them. Take them to a court and do things legally. And no masks. Wear normal uniforms, have name tags on said uniforms, etc. Stop arresting and cuffing little kids. Do things right.
Click to expand...
Oddly, that's exactly what ICE did. Tren de Agua were the first to go. No need for an arrest warrant for illegals. That would require courts to get involved in what isn't in their purview. It's a Federal affair. "Legality" has nothing to do with it.

IF you wanted legality, the illegals should have gone through LEGAL channels to get into the country, not the other way around. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Masks? If ICE wears them it's to protect their ID's because the left isn't not going to dox them and threaten their families. That kind of behavior is beyond the pale. It just goes to the left breaking the law yet again to 'get their way'....

Cuffing little kids? Haven't seen much if any of that going on, but if the kid is illegal along with the parents they get cuffed for THEIR and ICE's protection.

And lest we forget, this is a war. Don't let your liberal emotions get clouded by what's really going on behind the scenes that the leftist media leaves out.



Sounds as if Trump knows the law as well:

GROK: The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, officially part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, is a U.S. federal law that allows the President to apprehend, restrain, or deport non-citizens ("aliens") who are citizens or subjects of a foreign nation with which the United States is at war. Enacted on July 6, 1798, during a period of tension with France (the Quasi-War), it was designed to address national security concerns by giving the government authority over individuals from enemy nations during wartime.

Key provisions include:
The President can issue a proclamation to detain or deport male non-citizens aged 14 or older who are from a hostile nation.

It applies only during a declared war or when a foreign nation threatens invasion.

Affected individuals can be apprehended, confined, or removed without a hearing, though modern interpretations suggest constitutional due process may apply today.

Unlike the Alien Friends Act (which expired), the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24. It was notably used during World War II to intern Japanese, German, and Italian nationals. Critics argue it risks abuse due to its broad executive powers, while supporters see it as a necessary wartime tool. Historical context includes fears of foreign influence during the Adams administration, alongside debates over individual rights versus national security.


GROK:
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was drafted and passed by the Fifth United States Congress, dominated by the Federalist Party, with key figures like John Adams (President) and Federalist leaders in Congress driving its creation. While no single individual is credited as the sole author, the act was part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, crafted collectively by Federalist legislators, including influential members like Robert Goodloe Harper and Samuel Sewall, who were active in national security debates. The legislation reflected the Federalists' concerns about foreign threats, particularly from France, during the Quasi-War. Specific authorship is not explicitly documented, as was typical for laws of that era, which were often committee-driven.

The Federalists in 1798 believed the Alien Enemies Act was necessary due to heightened national security fears during the Quasi-War with France, an undeclared naval conflict. They saw several pressing reasons:
Fear of Foreign Subversion: Tensions with France raised concerns that French citizens or sympathizers in the U.S. might act as spies, saboteurs, or agitators, undermining the young republic’s stability.

War Powers Need: With potential for formal war, Federalists wanted legal tools to control citizens of an enemy nation, ensuring the government could detain or deport those deemed threats during wartime.

Political Climate: The Federalists, led by President John Adams, faced domestic unrest, including pro-French sentiment among some Americans, especially Democratic-Republicans. They feared foreign influence could fuel internal dissent.

Protecting National Sovereignty: As a new nation, the U.S. was wary of European powers meddling in its affairs. The act was seen as a way to assert control over foreign nationals during crises.

The broader context of the Alien and Sedition Acts reflected Federalist anxieties about both external threats and internal opposition, though critics, like Thomas Jefferson, argued these laws were overly broad and aimed at silencing political rivals. The Alien Enemies Act specifically targeted wartime scenarios, unlike its companion laws, which stirred more controversy over civil liberties.

=========

pretty much sums up exactly what we've been going through....
 
Not sure but from what I've heard the number is closer to 700.

About 500 Marines being mobilized in response to LA protests, sources tell CNN​

Roughly 500 Marines based out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in California have been mobilized to respond to the protests in Los Angeles, according to three people familiar with the matter, and will join the thousands of National Guard troops that were activated by President Donald Trump over the weekend without the consent of California’s governor or LA’s mayor.

The deployment of the full Marine battalion marks a significant escalation in Trump’s use of the military as a show of force against protesters, but it is still unclear what their task will be once in LA, the sources said. Like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity like making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.

More:

 
VDH Talking sense again



Why Is Governor Newsom Going Full Jefferson Davis?

What triggered the American Civil War were state officials who refused to honor federal law and instead boasted of their open defiance of Washington.

That precedent apparently is the incendiary model for the weird, but dangerous recent behavior of an increasingly unhinged California Governor Gavin Newsom.

He is currently supporting the often-violent protestors in Los Angeles and their resistance to federal officials’ enforcement of immigration laws.

Newsom claimed that Trump’s use of ICE to detain those here illegally in the U.S. was “reckless”, “chaotic” and “eroding trust”.

Does he think that his own rhetoric is creating calm and building trust by opposing the lawful enforcement of federal statutes? Or is he following the baleful model of arch-Confederate rebel Jefferson Davis?

Does Newsom support the similar defiance of fellow resistor Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass? She all but called for official city resistance to the enforcement of federal law, with an added threat, “We will not stand for this."

What does Bass—who recently was junketing in Ghana as entire swaths of Los Angeles were incinerated—mean by “we”? All of Los Angeles? The LAPD?

Will Bass use the LA police to stand against federal officers who are implementing the law and have a constitutional right and indeed requirement to enforce federal laws within the states?

Does the governor grasp that his reckless states’ rights rhetoric empowers violent protestors who torch cars, pelt passersbys, and assault officers?

Take, for example, fellow California Democrat, Congresswoman Norma Torres. She just messaged federal immigration officers with the obscene threat,“Get the f--- out of LA.”

Does Torres believe that Los Angeles should become a modern-day South Carolina of 1861, boasting that it will defy the federal government?

Is Torres echoing Democrat and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? He just boasted that he would dox endangered ICE agents, publishing their personal information and revealing their identities (“Every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.”).

How exactly does Rep. Torres think she is going to get federal officers “the f--- out of LA”?

Does Torres consider the now outnumbered and often threatened ICE officers to be the modern versions of surrounded federal troops at Fort Sumner?

Newsom did just not stop at siding with violent resistors to federal officers.

He again took on the federal government and the Trump administration for reminding California that it is subject to federal fines for its current defiance of federal Title 9-related presidential executive orders barring transgendered biological men from competing in women’s sports.

Trump recently was merely following the precedent of the Obama administration that first issued such warnings of cut-offs to educational institutions that might not abide its own Title 9 federal policies and directives.

Here is how Newsom worded his threats of insurrectionary resistance to Washington:

“Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off”.

Cut that off?

Has the rebellious Newsom read the U.S. Constitution? Is he calling for us Californians not to pay our federal income taxes?

Does he know that he just de facto called for federal tax evasion—an act that could be construed as a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 2 of the federal tax code?

States do not have the legal authority to override the federal government by arbitrarily withholding federally warranted income taxes from its U.S. citizens. In 1861 such defiance almost destroyed the U.S.

And does a clueless Newsom really believe that California’s $80 billion surplus of taxes versus receivables with the U.S. Treasury actually pays “the bills for the federal government”? Hardly.

In truth, it amounts to no more than 1.5 percent of the annual $5.5 trillion in federal revenue?

Does Newsom even realize that California taxpayers are American citizens first, and California residents second?

Or has his past advocacy for defiant sanctuary cities and current nullification of federal law made him a states’ rights rebel in the past fashion of George Wallace’s Alabama resistance?

Beside their Confederate-like defiant threats to resist federal laws, do Newsom, Bass, and Torres realize they are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion?

Despite the media and leftwing hysterias, even the liberal CBS poll just reported that 54 percent of Americans still support deportation as a legitimate means of enforcement of federal immigration law.

In contrast, Newsom’s latest polls show that just 2 percent of Democrats envision him as their 2028 party presidential nominee.

Worse, in the most recent average of some 30 polls, only 27 percent of those surveyed expressed a favorable opinion of Newsom.

Does he think that illegal aliens violently breaking the laws of the nation in which they demand to stay and burning its flag, while waving the flag of the foreign country to which they refuse to return, will win the support of the American people?

Does he grasp that 75 percent of Americans support the deportation of illegal aliens who commit criminal acts like many of those currently in the Los Angeles protests?

Or is Newsom signaling that given all these polls he prefers to end his political career—and so just blew it up?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom