Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2024 11:06 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:56 pm

He will bring peace to Gaza.
After everybody in one place is slaughtered, it is usually very peaceful in that place.

If, as an adult, you looked past his history of lying, you're entitled to look as stupid as you do.

Trump Says It’s ‘TRUE’ He Will Declare National Emergency and Use Military to Mass Deport Millions

Trump’s team is reportedly devising ways to create executive orders that will survive challenges from human rights groups.
Sean Craig

Updated Nov. 18 2024 11:54AM EST /
Published Nov. 18 2024 9:54AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump verified Monday that he intends to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to deport millions of people when he takes office in January.

Tom Fitton, who leads the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform earlier this month that the Republican politician is “prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program.”

Trump quoted his post with an emphatic corroboration: “TRUE!!”

Trump pledged throughout the campaign that he would swiftly move to detain and deport millions of undocumented migrants.

Unlike his first run for office in 2016, when his hardline immigration campaigning focused on building a border wall, this year he preached aggressive legal crackdowns that would involve a broad swath of agencies and, potentially, America’s military.

Sources familiar with the plans told CNN over the weekend that Trump’s aides are already plotting how to expand detention facilities, including in metropolitan areas.

Politico reported Monday that Trump’s team is also devising ways to create executive orders that will withstand legal challenges from human rights groups, noting he can also count on a friendlier judiciary than he faced during his first time in office, in particular thanks to the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court.

There were roughly 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States as of last year, the most since 2010, according to the Center for Migration Studies.

Trump told Time earlier this year he would deport 15 to 20 million.

His running mate, vice president-elect JD Vance, blithely compared the ticket’s plans—which would tear apart families, disrupt local economies and put pressure on the labor market supply—to eating a Big Mac.

“You say, you can’t possibly eat that whole thing. It’s bigger than your mouth,” Vance said, during a podcast appearance last month. “Well, the way you do it is you take one bite, then a second bite, and then a third bite. And that’s how I think about deportations here.”

Trump has promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a 226-year-old law that was used to detain “enemy aliens” during times of war—since the U.S. is not currently at war, legal challenges would likely target the law’s applicability.

Trump also plans to end fast tracked humanitarian visa paroles for undocumented people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

To mete out his policies, Trump has begun assembling a team of hard-liners who share his stark view of immigration. Tom Homan, the former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will be appointed “border czar.”

He has also nominated South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem Homeland Security secretary—while not from a border state, the MAGA loyalist has long echoed Trump’s anti-immigration views.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-say ... -millions/

Donald Trump’s Deportation Plan Causes ‘Panic’ Among Farmers who can’t find enough workers

(Bloomberg) — President-elect Donald Trump’s threat of mass deportations risks hurting US agriculture, dealing an additional blow to a sector already struggling with labor shortages and bracing for trade disputes.

It definitely has an impact,” the chief executive officer said during an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power.” “It’s still a very human-intensity business that we’re in.”

While the rural US has seen some population growth in recent years, it experienced an overall loss of population in the prior decade, according to the US Department of Agriculture. That makes the labor dilemma even more challenging as older farmers and ranchers find it tougher to pass down operations to younger family members.

The effect of deportations could be especially acute in areas such as California, which abounds in specialty crops like fruits, nuts and vegetables and relies on seasonal workers from Mexico and other countries. The USDA has said nearly half of hired crop farmworkers lack legal immigration status.

The grain and soybean-dominated Midwest also could be at risk, according to Carstens. The region depends in part on the government’s H-2A program that allows certain US employers to bring foreign nationals into the country to fill temporary agriculture jobs.

Trade TensionOn the trade front, any new tariff clash with China — the world’s largest importer of agriculture products — would hit American growers as they battle lower demand for exports and a plunge in crop prices.“When you lose volume like we have to China, that has a long-term ripple effect, and it’s hard to recover from,” Carstens said.Rural communities overwhelmingly backed Trump in his election win last week over Kamala Harris, even after a trade war with China during his first term put US growers at risk of losing global market share in the long run. Soybean sales alone to the Asian nation plummeted by almost 79% in the first two years of Trump’s presidency, though $28 billion in subsequent farm aid eased the pain.

He did come back around and square it up with the farmers,” Carstens said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Chicago office on Tuesday. “That’s a memory they have.”Since then, competition from Brazil for the world’s crop exports, including to China, has ratcheted up and led to serious concern about the future of America’s standing as a global agriculture leader.“South America is growing — they’re improving yields, they’re planting more acres,” Carstens said. “Combine that with tariffs and other disputes and debates that we’re having with other countries and that becomes problematic.”–With assistance from Kailey Leinz and Michael Hirtzer.

https://thenewsglobe.net/?p=7891

dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:49 am Has something changed in federal employment and union laws? I know it has been a long time since I was a federal government employee, but at that time, it was next to impossible to fire federal workers. The union won't have it without documentation that would take years to accumulate.

While it would be difficult to fire federal workers, it would be less difficult to decrease the budget for government agencies sufficiently to require layoffs (assuming you have control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and your party will go along with you).

dave g wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:26 am

dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:49 am Has something changed in federal employment and union laws? I know it has been a long time since I was a federal government employee, but at that time, it was next to impossible to fire federal workers. The union won't have it without documentation that would take years to accumulate.

While it would be difficult to fire federal workers, it would be less difficult to decrease the budget for government agencies sufficiently to require layoffs (assuming you have control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and your party will go along with you).

Okay. Let's run with that. My understanding is that, even if you reduce federal budgets to the extent that federal employees have nothing to do because of budget cuts, you would have to find a place where that person could be reassigned (it's called a detail). You can't just lay off federal employees. Unless you change federal employment law and reduce the power of the federal employee union. Of course, those are options. But I have no idea what would be involved in making that happen.

I do remember hearing about "Reductions in Force." That never happened, though... Because of federal employment and federal union law. They couldn't do it.

Which is why, back in the Clinton Administration, they offered buyouts to get rid of the "dead wood"... And yes, there was still plenty of dead wood in the federal government at that point. Lots of people seized the opportunity, and that was how I advanced quickly in government jobs. I was getting a grade increase every year because I had a supportive supervisor who believed in me.

But unless there have been changes to federal employment law and federal union rules that I don't know about, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened, you can't just fire federal employees, which makes everything Musk has been saying a great big lie.

If I am wrong, someone please tell me.

dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:49 am

dave g wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:26 am

dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:49 am Has something changed in federal employment and union laws? I know it has been a long time since I was a federal government employee, but at that time, it was next to impossible to fire federal workers. The union won't have it without documentation that would take years to accumulate.

While it would be difficult to fire federal workers, it would be less difficult to decrease the budget for government agencies sufficiently to require layoffs (assuming you have control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and your party will go along with you).

Okay. Let's run with that. My understanding is that, even if you reduce federal budgets to the extent that federal employees have nothing to do because of budget cuts, you would have to find a place where that person could be reassigned (it's called a detail). You can't just lay off federal employees. Unless you change federal employment law and reduce the power of the federal employee union. Of course, those are options. But I have no idea what would be involved in making that happen.

I do remember hearing about "Reductions in Force." That never happened, though... Because of federal employment and federal union law. They couldn't do it.

Which is why, back in the Clinton Administration, they offered buyouts to get rid of the "dead wood"... And yes, there was still plenty of dead wood in the federal government at that point. Lots of people seized the opportunity, and that was how I advanced quickly in government jobs. I was getting a grade increase every year because I had a supportive supervisor who believed in me.

But unless there have been changes to federal employment law and federal union rules that I don't know about, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened, you can't just fire federal employees, which makes everything Musk has been saying a great big lie.

If I am wrong, someone please tell me.

You are wrong. If the budget gets reduced sufficiently that the agencies can not afford to pay the workers they currently have, then they will have to lay some of the workers off. It is called a Reduction In Force (RIF). RIF's do have all sort of special rules, mainly the people who keep their jobs are determined by seniority within job series. They are rare, and often local. They did have an "almost-RIF" when I was working. They had decided to combine two different regions into one. They managed to not RIF anyone by ordering a part-time worker to move to a different location, even though their other part-time job and family were not going to be able to go to the new location (two income households). RIFs are really ugly, and the agencies will offer buy-outs first, but it is possible for not enough people to accept the buy-out to avoid a RIF. The method I have seen, is that they buy-out is only offered as long as there has not been a decision to get the authority to have a RIF. Once the authority to conduct a RIF was obtained, the buy-out offers would cease. Because of the complexities and problems caused by RIFs, they have been avoided as much as possible. (At least in the Forest Service, where I worked.)

Thanks for the correction, dave g. Much appreciated. I still don't think firing thousands of federal workers will be as easy as Musk says it will be. But then again, we are in unprecedented times with a group of people who are convinced there are no rules.

What do we think how successful their deportations are going to be? I'm now assuming they'll try. Will it be under or over one million?

Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:26 am What do we think how successful their deportations are going to be? I'm now assuming they'll try. Will it be under or over one million?

It's so hard to say right now. The resources needed to move a million people are pretty extensive, and what will the courts do with these cases? Getting a million people together to deport them won't necessarily be difficult especially if they're not very selective about who they collect. As a Canadian, I'm anticipating a wave of people heading to the border in the middle of winter which I'm sure will work out very well.

dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 4:10 am Thanks for the correction, dave g. Much appreciated. I still don't think firing thousands of federal workers will be as easy as Musk says it will be. But then again, we are in unprecedented times with a group of people who are convinced there are no rules.

Somehow the republicans just do what they want in a way the democrats never can.

skatingfan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 9:47 am

Suliso wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:26 am What do we think how successful their deportations are going to be? I'm now assuming they'll try. Will it be under or over one million?

It's so hard to say right now. The resources needed to move a million people are pretty extensive, and what will the courts do with these cases? Getting a million people together to deport them won't necessarily be difficult especially if they're not very selective about who they collect. As a Canadian, I'm anticipating a wave of people heading to the border in the middle of winter which I'm sure will work out very well.

11 million people to deport. The reverse engineering says:
He needs to roughly deport 7500 people per day during four years. That is 30 planes a day, full of people. But, you cannot deport Colombians to El Salvador, or Venezuelans to Mexico. So, he will most likely establish "camps" to hold these people there, as a sign that he is doing something. They will, of course, be inhumane, but the people that are really into this deportation issue won't care one bit if they are inhumane bordering on cruel.
So, it will be a charade. But the effort and money needed to deport all these people will simply be too much.

I would think his thinking is along the lines of "They came through Mexico, they're going back through Mexico".

11 million no, but just one? I think that could be possible.

250K per year. Yes, that is doable. My thinking is how to do it. As a government, he just can't dump them at the Mexican border. He might think he can, but he can only do that with Mexicans. Venezuelans are concentrated in Florida, so sending them home would be more logistically difficult.
I have friends there. But most of them are legal there.