The Trump-Vance-Miller Great Migrant Deportation Lie

They Say They’ll Deport 11,000,000 People. That will destroy the border states.

Detained migrants in Trump’s makeshift detention center in El Paso, Texas in March 2019. We can expect much more of this—and worses—if he’s elected again.

A Note on Stephen Miller from the Southern Poverty Law Canter.

Stephen Miller is credited with shaping the racist and draconian immigration policies of former President Trump, which include the zero-tolerance policy, also known as family separation, the Muslim ban and ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Miller also “purged” government agencies of civil servants who were not entirely loyal to his extremist agenda, according to a report in Vanity Fair. …

---

From Rupert Chapman, III, PhD, curator emeritus of Levantine Antiquities at The British Museum. He is co-creator of PolitiSage and has written a primary article on historical migrations that is linked below.

---

My first question about this preposterous notion is just how radically “ambitious” it is and how “realistic” (or unrealistic) it is as a project. The answer to that is that only eight of the 50 U.S. states actually have a population of 11,000,000 people or more: in descending order of population, these states are California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia.

In other words, this project is equivalent to moving, housing and processing for deportation, however minimally, more people than make up the total population in 42 out of the 50 individual states—or in the ten least-populous states plus the District of Columbia combined. It is massive.

With that in mind, Stephen Miller has spoken of creating “camps”—holding centers—along the Southern border to incarcerate the people rounded up for deportation until they can be shipped out. Given the scale of the project and the number of potential deportees involved, these camps would need to be gigantic.

On Whose Land????

As the U.S. government doesn’t now hold the vast areas of land required for the housing of millions of people, the construction of such camps, in which the potential deportees from all across the country would be concentrated, would necessitate the appropriation of lands from private owners. I would predict that this approach would not be overwhelmingly popular in the state(s) where the camps would be located.

Those locations would have to be chosen carefully, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the Southwestern U.S. isn’t the most well-watered region, and the introduction of such a large, if temporary, population would create a need for a vast water supply—which would probably be more readily available in Texas than in Arizona or New Mexico.

The logistical problems would be immense. Even if the inmates of the camps are inadequately fed and clothed, dealing with such large numbers of people would require vast, organized operations to supply water, food, clothing, medical treatment, sewerage disposal, and so on. The costs of the complex of camps would be staggering, and the diversion of food from the usual markets would cause substantial disruption.

The camps would also have to be staffed with administrators, guards, and care staff—although, of course, money could be saved by minimizing the last. As the existing functions of the Emigration Service would continue to require the same number of staff as before, this would entail the hiring of large numbers of new staff, whose pay, at the correct grades, would be another major factor in the cost of the project.

Taken altogether, the cost of this project would be vast, and it would likely infringe the private property rights of large numbers of people. It would also generate substantial public opposition on the part of many influential large landowners as well as from the general public—and create the most massive disruption in the US labor force anyone has ever seen, crippling the manufacturing and distribution of a whole range of commodities, especially food.

The Legal and Moral Issues

All of this is quite apart from the basic legal and moral issues raised by the proposal in the first place. The public opposition is likely to generate at least as substantial a legal challenge as the UK government’s plan to deport refugees to Rwanda has. So far, the UK plan, which has cost a vast amount of money, has, at the time of this writing, deported not so much as a single person. It has also resulted in the absurdity of the UK government passing a bill officially declaring that, by law, Rwanda—a dictatorship—is a safe country to which refugees may be deported (for a substantial fee).

And so far, I’ve heard no mention of how the United States or the UK plan to deport millions of people to countries which may refuse to admit them. By international agreement, countries are supposed to accept all citizens returned by foreign countries, but nothing really forces them to do so. Would the US government send in the Marines to strong-arm other countries into accepting those it chooses to deport, or would Miller and Trump devise some other solution to the undocumented immigrant problem?

More …

---

---

---

To share this post, click below.

---

To share PolitiSage (please do!), click below.

---

To opt in for a free or paid subscription, click below.

---

Now, that was simple, wasn’t it? Thanks for joining us today …