- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- usa@midwest.social
When Stephen Miller offered his first big rollout of Donald Trump’s immigration agenda during the 2024 campaign, he demonstrated great enthusiasm for the idea of giant migrant camps. He gushed about creating “vast holding facilities” built on “open land,” which would enable Trump to escalate the volume and speed of deportations to unprecedented heights. Trembling with excitement, Miller vowed: “President Trump will do whatever it takes.”
But a funny thing has happened with Miller’s authoritarian fever dreams. As plans for these new detention facilities have become public, they’re encountering opposition in some very unlikely places. Notably, that includes regions that backed Trump in 2024.
Which in turn captures something essential about this moment: The public backlash unleashed by Trump’s immigration agenda runs far deeper than revulsion at imagery of ICE violence. It’s now seemingly coalescing against the goal of mass removals as a broader ideological project.
We’re now learning that this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to retrofit around two dozen vast new facilities. In keeping with Trump-Miller’s visions, ICE vows to detain an additional 80,000 people in them. Some will reportedly hold up to 10,000 detainees apiece. In other words, the Trump-Miller threat to create a system of new detention camps is just getting underway in earnest.
To put a ghoulish twist on the oft-discussed ideal of bureaucratic “capacity,” this will allow Trump and Miller to imprison and then deport vastly more people a whole lot faster. Right now, more than 70,000 migrants are languishing in detention—a record—but the administration is running out of space. Add another 80,000 beds, and it would supercharge expulsion capacity.
Yet these detention dreams are hitting stiff opposition. ICE wants to buy a warehouse in Virginia’s Hanover County, which went for Trump by 26 points in 2024 and combines rural territory with Richmond’s northern suburbs. Residents recently turned out in force and angrily condemned the proposed sale, with local reports suggesting only a “handful” backed it. The GOP-heavy Board of Supervisors opposed the transaction. The warehouse owner canceled the sale.
You must log in or # to comment.
“Fury” in his own camp? These people protect kidfuckers. They’re not furious about a god damned thing.
Classic whataboutism. The kidfucking has nothing to do with this story.
Two things can be bad at the same time.
I think you need to revisit the definition of whataboutism, because what I said isn’t even remotely similar.
It’s using one example to prove the inaccuracy of a statement, not to distract from it or to defend it.
“People who commonly rob homes are suddenly furious about check fraud!”
…would be a stupid and inaccurate assumption to make. And suggesting that people who protect child molestation are probably not furious about wanting Trump does is not at all whataboutism.
It’s great that you think that. You’re wrong, though. You conflated two unrelated issues into an argument, which is the literal definition.
I created an example of one thing to disprove another, which is not even remotely the same.
And it was ONE unrelated issue, the other issue was the fucking subject of the post.
Now you seem to want an argument, and I’m not here to debate rhetoric so, let’s agree to disagree.
I didn’t want an argument. You brought up an irrelevant topic to back your point. I’m fine leaving this lie where we are, but you don’t get a free pass that you were somehow arguing in good faith.
Okay buddy.
Look, if you want to talk about Epstein, that’s fine. I encourage it. Just do it in relevant threads going forward, such that this community doesn’t devolve into Reddit.
