patrick.net

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/in-sickness-and-health-tuesday-may

Yesterday, the Trump Administration announced a new self-deporting program on Homeland Security’s website titled, “DHS Announces Historic Travel Assistance and Stipend for Voluntary Self-Deportation.” We saw this one coming a mile away. The Border Report ran the story under the headline, “Trump administration offers to pay plane tickets, give stipend to self-deporting immigrants.”

It’s much cheaper this way. DHS reported that the average cost to arrest, detain, and remove one illegal alien is $17,121. So, they are wisely offering free plane tickets, $1,000 once they get home, and temporary protection (“deprioritization”) from being arrested and involuntarily deported. Self-deporting migrants may also be allowed to re-apply later for legal admission, from their own country.

It’s a good offer. Stay, and you might get sent to the Salvadoran Super-Maxx prison. Or take the money and go. The Trump Administration has crafted a neat set of aligned incentives.

Even better, it’s convenient! Thanks to Joe Biden, the aliens all have free cell phones pre-loaded with the CBP One app (now renamed ‘CBP Home’). They can sign up for the self-deporting program right in the app, just by clicking “Intent to Depart.” It’s so easy! It only takes a few seconds!

Having the self-deportation infrastructure in place, DHS can now slowly increase the $1,000 stipend, to convince more and more migrants to self-deport. It’s so much nicer to fly commercial, instead of taking the CECOT express.

I don't think the stipend should be increased, because that motivates the criminal aliens to wait for more money.

Patrick says

I don't think the stipend should be increased, because that motivates the criminal aliens to wait for more money.

I posted in the Maryland thread. Crimes stats are down bigly in Chicago, homicides at least. It's been a relatively warm spring and no snow winter basically. YOY stats are down. https://heyjackass.com/2025-total-shot-trend/ For those that don't want to click the link. Half as many homicides versus 2020 and the lowest in 6 years at this time.



I think the threat of deportation is sinking in. Yet some bitch about due process. I like these results.

Addition/Edit: Point is crime is already noticeably dropping since Trump got elected. Indisputable. Likely much of it due to deportation.

https://slaynews.com/news/new-analysis-debunks-claims-bidens-deportation-rate-2024-higher-trumps/

While the number of illegal aliens deported by Trump since taking office in January appears to be lagging a bit behind former President Joe Biden’s number of deportees in 2024, a new analysis by Just the News shows that this is not, in fact, the case.

It turns out the Biden administration counted “turnarounds” as removals or deportations.

“Turnarounds” are those turned back at the border who never entered the U.S. and were not technically “deported.”

These turnarounds accounted for 80% of the Biden administration’s so-called removals/deportations that year.

However, turnarounds are not included in Trump’s figures.

This means that Trump’s estimated 660 removals per day of illegal immigrants who were living in the U.S. interior is far beyond Biden’s (less than 20% of an estimated 770 a day, or about 130 a day).

It's still way too low. We need to deport 5 million per year at least.

https://nypost.com/2025/05/04/us-news/dhs-slams-nyt-for-story-about-sicko-who-raped-corpse-on-nyc-subway-refused-to-mention-hes-an-illegal-alien/

DHS slams NYT for story about sicko who raped corpse on NYC subway: ‘Refused to mention’ he’s an ‘ILLEGAL alien’

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) slammed The New York Times Saturday over a story about a suspect who allegedly raped a corpse on a New York City subway, saying the reporters failed to mention the man was in the US illegally.

“The New York Times refused to mention anywhere in its 400-word story on the monstrous rape of a corpse on the NYC subway that the depraved perpetrator is an ILLEGAL alien,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary for public affairs, wrote on X. “Why not report the facts, @nytimes?”

And it was a male corpse.

https://palexander.substack.com/p/there-is-so-much-wrong-ill-depraved

An illegal immigrant repeatedly raping a dead man on the subway in NYC.
I do not know what to say.

I guess several questions come to mind: how come this illegal entered US 5 times? how come he was on the loose? how come a dead man was sitting in the R train and no one knew he was dead? how come he could be sodomized for 30 minutes and no one knew or did anything? it was on the surveillance in the train system so how come the transit authority did not stop the train?

Patrick says

It's still way too low. We need to deport 5 million per year at least.

Not gonna happen. Progress is progress though. Remember in my comment above, the THREAT of deportation has value as well even if they stay. We're not a perfect nation, but likely better than their home nation. They don't want to lose that with criminal activities.

I don't live in Chicago anymore, but those stats are pretty damn promising for a city I spent a decade living in and know well. We'll see how the summer goes. The hispanic on black crime will likely go down, along with over crime.

Patrick says

Money and a free flight if you leave, big fines accruing daily if you don't.

Smart.

Patrick says

And it was a male corpse.

Exclusive–Rep. Hageman Introduces ‘No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act’

A new bill aimed at holding sanctuary cities “accountable” has been introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), with Breitbart News obtaining exclusive access to the proposed legislation as well as the congresswoman’s letter to President Donald Trump pledging to help him stop Democrat-controlled jurisdictions from harboring illegal migrants.

The “No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act,” introduced Wednesday, would “hold sanctuary cities accountable for their violation of federal law and for their aiding of illegal aliens” by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit student visas being granted for institutions in such jurisdictions, Hageman’s office told Breitbart News.

“Leftist proponents of open borders, or no borders at all, have infiltrated many of our states, cities, and counties and caused the so-called leaders within them to completely undermine the rule of law,” the congresswoman explained. “Instead of protecting their citizens, sanctuary city officials have chosen those here unlawfully — many of them members of international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations –- over their constituents.”

Hageman, who has represented Wyoming’s at-large congressional district after beating former Rep. Liz Cheney in the 2022 Republican primary, went on to explain that “Prohibiting student visas is an accountability measure to pressure obstructors of justice to take action in complying with the rules set forth by Congressional representatives of the American people.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/outstanding-wyoming-republican-rep-harriet-hageman-introduces-no/

Love it! Would kick a lot of city's asses, like Boston.

AmericanKulak says

Love it! Would kick a lot of city's asses, like Boston.

Won't pass. There are elected Republicans in sanctuary cities/places that would have to vote. Especially suburban areas with larger colleges. No chance you get a Republic majority vote. Like the idea, but without the votes it's not happening. Maybe I'll be wrong, but not seeing it.

Remember with gerrymandering if part of the district is in a college town you get smashed as a Republican. The center people will care about it more than other issues. The professors and admin that live and work at the college could turn a lot of independents and business owners. Higher student population, more revenues. They don't care how the students got there.

RWSGFY says

Patrick says

As if black illegals do not exist.

For one, it is good to bring awareness to all races about the illegal issue but on the other hand, I don't like only saying it puts black lives last. No, it is putting all American Citizens last. That should be the focus. AND pointing out who the perpetrators are that caused this problem.

Patrick says

A some point they should just shoot him.

@DeficitHawk wants them all the get "Due Process" for every time they cross the border. 40 times? Yep, 40 times due process. DeficitHawk is a joke and probably an illegal alien him/herself.

GNL says

DeficitHawk wants them all the get "Due Process" for every time they cross the border. 40 times? Yep, 40 times due process. DeficitHawk is a joke and probably an illegal alien him/herself.

I hear my name being called.... Sorry for slow reply, the network access is slow here in the El Salvadorian gulag where I have been put...

My position is really just what the courts have already found, I'm not proposing anything new.

Immigrants in the process of arriving can be turned away without due process. Immigrants who have been here and established a life here get due process. There is a grey zone when one situation transitions into the other situation, and courts have set guidelines for this. Key laws are the "expedited removal for arriving immigrants" section of the 1996 immigration reform law, which lays out the process for removal of arriving immigrants without a hearing. There are a number of court cases which have dealt with its interpretation, and clarify when "arriving" becomes "already here".

Patrick and others made an analogy on another thread of someone sneaking into your house and becoming a squatter/tenant with rights... If you deal with an intruder promptly you have every right to confront and escalate the confrontation to force them to leave. But if you don't confront them, and you let them become a long term resident, eventually they are considered a tenant and you have to go through eviction proceedings to get them out. Its the same with immigration.

Yes, residents of this country (no matter immigration status) are entitled due process. Its in our constitution and has been repeatedly confirmed by SCOTUS. People who are caught in the process of sneaking into the country are not entitled due process.

That's the courts ruling on it, and I agree with it.

We do have laws and a constitution in this country. We should follow them. We have specific laws how to deal with immigration issues like illegal immigration. We should follow those laws. Laws can be updated if we want to change them, but they still have to fit within the constitution. Constitution can in principle be changed, but harder to get consensus to do so. Whatever the case, we should follow the laws and constitution as they are until there are new ones.

I dont know why people mock the simple principle of "Follow the laws and follow the constitution". Everyone wants to say "Well, someone else broke a law, so I am justified in breaking laws/constitution myself in response".... that mindset is wrong.

DeficitHawk is a pretty classic example of a troll, pretending to be rational while deliberately offending, just for the enjoyment of causing as much anger as possible.

Iwog, is that you?

Could also be paid by the DNC, or be AI.

Patrick says

Iwog, is that you?

I wish it was. What ever happened to that 2017 crash??? Nothing. Never have I seen a worse prediction. TDS though.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a pretty classic example of a troll, pretending to be rational while deliberately offending, just for the enjoyment of causing as much anger as possible.

Iwog, is that you?

Could also be paid by the DNC, or be AI.

I called him out in his bullshit early on. He then stopped replying to me. Case closed.

The trick is to not play his moving goalposts game. He just does that to string you along as much as possible.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a pretty classic example of a troll, pretending to be rational while deliberately offending, just for the enjoyment of causing as much anger as possible.

Iwog, is that you?

Could also be paid by the DNC, or be AI.

You're right. I'm letting it go now.

DeficitHawk says

But if you don't confront them, and you let them become a long term resident, eventually they are considered a tenant and you have to go through eviction proceedings to get them out.

Only is some retarded states like California.

In Florida eviction is pretty quick and easy, and they made it easier a few years ago to evict family members. Florida only gives THREE DAYS before eviction on missed rent.

For transient squatters - those who can't show ANY documentation of their right to be there whatsoever - DO NOT GET A HEARING. Their asses are thrown out by the sheriff and by state law the sheriff and the landlord are immune from paying any damages. Your TV is going out with you, and if it shatters on the way out, tough shit for the squatter.

The "Due Process" for the squatter is the owner telling him to get the fuck out, then going to the Sheriff who checks the property tax register of the county in a minute or is presented with title by the owner and a request the squatter be tossed.

Then away he goes in minutes.

BTW, Illegal Immigrants are transient squatters. Unlike overstaying or troublesome tenants, they never had a lease to break in the first place. They are transient squatters.

Got any documentation? "F you, yanqui!".
Looks like you had a hearing but didn't go. "F you, ese"
Grab by ear, toss.

Civil Forfeiture could be a great, too. "Well, if you want to contest your deportation, we're taking your pickup, tools, TV, etc."

Of course various NGOs from LARS to CC to HIAC would sadly pay to contest. Gotta protect their federal AND state aid.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a pretty classic example of a troll, pretending to be rational while deliberately offending

What am I saying that is offensive?

I am citing the law, and the constitution, and the supreme courts rulings on relevant cases. I'm also saying my opinion is more or less the same as SCOTUS on these topics.

Is that offensive to you? I cant imagine why it would be.

AmericanKulak says

Only is some retarded states like California.

All states have squatters rights. And all states have tenants laws. No state would allow you to evict a tenant or long term squatter by force without some eviction process being followed.

Details vary by state in terms of duration and process, but no state has no process.

In California, squatters take ownership after 5 years. In Florida its 7 years. Some states require that the squatter has been paying taxes. Some states don't.
All states have squatters rights.

DeficitHawk says

All states have squatters rights. And all states have tenants laws. No state would allow you to evict a tenant or long term squatter by force without some eviction process being followed.

I just gave you an example of transient squatters being removed without needing a Judge. Chapter 82 of Florida State Law allows removal of squatters at the satisfaction of the Sheriff, no Judge required.

Patrick says

Iwog, is that you?

Maybe I am ApocalypseFuck back from the dead...

Get your yams and belt fed ammo!!!!

DeficitHawk says

I am citing the law, and the constitution, and the supreme courts rulings on relevant cases. I'm also saying my opinion is more or less the same as SCOTUS on these topics.

Yep, and SCOTUS has previously decided that FORMER membership in another time and place of certain organized groups, criminal or political, allows deportation in and of itself. Countless persons have been deported on those grounds.

DeficitHawk says

All states have squatters rights. And all states have tenants laws. No state would allow you to evict a tenant or long term squatter by force without some eviction process being followed.

A straw man. I guarantee too that 90% of Deportees never paid income taxes, too. We don't have a federal sales tax, and immigration administrative (not criminal) law DGAF about somebody paying LA+CA sales or excise tax to buy rolling papers at the head shop

AmericanKulak says

I just gave you an example of transient squatters being removed without needing a Judge. Chapter 82 of Florida State Law allows removal of squatters at the satisfaction of the Sheriff, no Judge required.

What if they have been there long enough to have a claim on the property? in Florida its 7 years.

AmericanKulak says

Yep, and SCOTUS has previously decided that FORMER membership in another time and place of certain organized groups, criminal or political, allows deportation in and of itself

Without due process? Can you cite the SCOTUS case?

DeficitHawk says

Without due process? Can you cite the SCOTUS case?

How's this for a source for deportation without due process?

Each year, over 363, 279 – 83 percent – of deportations from the United States are ordered by immigration officers, not judges. Those deported in "summary removal" processes do not get a hearing or a chance to present evidence, or call a lawyer, or even say goodbye to their families before they are banished, sometimes for life.

https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-behind-and-deported-without-chance-be-heard

ACLU, complaining the Obammunist used "Summary Removal" many thousands of times. No judge required, just the decision of an administrator.

Do you get a hearing when the IRS orders you to pay back taxes? Or do YOU have to initiate a suit?

Wow, Obama "BANISHED!" (clutches pearls) so many people without a hearing. What a dictator, I'm sure you agree.

AmericanKulak says

Each year, over 363, 279 – 83 percent – of deportations from the United States are ordered by immigration officers, not judges. Those deported in "summary removal" processes do not get a hearing or a chance to present evidence, or call a lawyer, or even say goodbye to their families before they are banished, sometimes for life.

those are "Arriving" immigrants. They can be deported without due process. Ive been saying that all along, and even cited the SCOUTUS case where it was established to be OK and the 1996 immigration reform laws that formalized the process.

DeficitHawk says

Can you cite the SCOTUS case?

Here you go! Notice the part where the SCOTUS affirms leaving it up to immigration officials without the need for a hearing.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/

These were resident aliens who were in the country for years or decades before being ejected. Not even illegal aliens, so how much less consideration for illegal border violators?

It's a new day in America.

We're focused on the outcome, and not letting leftist tricks to suddenly be concerned about process that they are UNconcerned with for asset forfeiture, racism claims, or Red Flag gun confiscation.

DeficitHawk says

Is that offensive to you? I cant imagine why it would be.

He's just going to keep playing you. Round and round. Just watch.

Right, the feigned sincerity and ignorance is part of the game.

"Who, me? What did I do?"

MolotovCocktail says

He's just going to keep playing you. Round and round. Just watch.

Yep. hey @MolotovCocktail, what's the thread for Trump Achievements?

We got a Trade Deal with a G-7 Country and all time top trade partner, an American Pope (which regardless of what one thinks how he will be is a prestige victory even if it is to try to shame the US into abiding by Francis' Jesuit Open Borders Liberation Theology), cancelled a $2.5B Tech Diworsity Gender-Racial Bias Program, and the Ukraine parliament is giving us total Rare Earth Metal access.

All in one day, and it's not over yet.

Patrick says

Right, the feigned sincerity and ignorance is part of the game.

"Who, me? What did I do?"

Not even I - when I am in Troll mode - am even that assoholicly manipulative.

AmericanKulak says

Yep. hey MolotovCocktail, what's the thread for Trump Achievements?

@AmericanKulak how about this one?

https://patrick.net/post/1383287/2025-01-21-did-you-feel-that-47-s-greatest-hits

AmericanKulak says

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/

This ruling DOES NOT say the immigrants aren't entitled due process... SCOTUS specifically reviewed for, and found no violation of due process in how the lower courts and immigration officials managed the cases. It did not invalidate the right to due process, it says they DID get due process. Whether everyone agrees with that is a separate question. I see the part where one person was both presiding and examining officer, with the consent of the that plaintiff... In my opinion this is a dubious practice, but the court found his consent to that arrangement was sufficient to satisfy due process. And, his case was further reviewed by judges who also upheld the deportation order. The court found this guy DID get due process, he just didn't like the outcome.

This ruling DOES say that immigrants can be banned and deported for membership in a group which is a threat to the country (communist party, this was during McCarthyism), since that was the law congress passed. The court isnt going to intervene against congresses laws unless they are unconstitutional, and they did not find anything unconstitutional in the law.

I am not trying to say we shouldn't have laws or standards that exclude immigrants on the basis of crimes, or associations with criminal organizations. I totally want that done. Criminal history and association with violent gangs are perfectly reasonable disqualifiers, and I completely support that.

I'm saying residents of this country, (no matter their immigration status) are entitled due process per our constitution. Immigrants turned away as they arrive are not.

MolotovCocktail says

He's just going to keep playing you.

MolotovCocktail says

Not even I - when I am in Troll mode - am even that assoholicly manipulative.

Im not playing anyone. Im not trolling, moving goalposts, being offensive or anything like that.

I have a simple position: Follow the laws, follow the constitution.

Just because someone else broke a law does not entitle you to violate the laws/constitution in response. Just because you are upset about past policy decisions doesn't entitle you to violate the law/constitution in response.

I don't consider these statements offensive... I consider them the most basic responsibilities of any human in our society.

DeficitHawk says

This ruling DOES NOT say the immigrants aren't entitled due process... SCOTUS specifically reviewed for, and found no violation of due process in how the lower courts and immigration officials managed the cases. It did not invalidate the right to due process, it says they DID get due process.

Read it again. Specifically in reference to Due Process, SCOTUS concurred that...

It is pertinent to observe that any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous [342 U.S. 580, 589] policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.

...

We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government's power of deportation. However desirable world-wide amelioration of the lot of aliens, we think it is peculiarly a subject for international diplomacy. It should not be initiated by judicial decision which can only deprive our own Government of a power of defense and reprisal without obtaining for American citizens abroad any reciprocal privileges or immunities. Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treaty-making powers.

We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause. These aliens are not entitled to judicial relief unless some other constitutional limitation has been transgressed, to which inquiry we turn.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/342/580.html

Over and over and over again SCOTUS has ruled that Congress and the President, via national security, war powers, and foreign policy, have near total powers over immigration and deportation NOT subject to judicial review.

The Administration is correct and just to ignore the orders to kidnap a wife-beating El Salvadoran citizen and bring him to the United States.

The Judiciary is a co-equal, not superior branch, and multiple SCOTUS decisions and ancient Constitutional precedence back the Administration.

If the Judiciary doesn't like it, let SCOTUS overturn multiple case law going back to the 19th Century in a shock reversal.

Or it can deploy the 2nd Judicial Air Assault Brigade to try to enforce it. heh heh heh