News: 0180766702

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline (bloomberg.com)

(Tuesday February 10, 2026 @05:45PM (msmash) from the closer-look dept.)


The U.S., whose population the Census Bureau did not expect to start shrinking until 2081, [1]may record its first-ever decline as early as this year because of the Trump administration's accelerating immigration crackdown. Census data released in late January showed US population growth slowed to just 0.5% in the year prior to July 2025 -- the lowest rate since the pandemic -- as net migration fell to 1.3 million from a peak of 2.7 million the year before.

Census experts now expect net migration to drop to only 316,000 in the year prior to July 2026 and say the country is "trending toward negative net migration." A joint study by researchers at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution estimates that 2026 net immigration could range from a gain of 185,000 to a loss of 925,000. Births exceeded deaths by just 519,000 in the most recent period, a surplus the Congressional Budget Office expects to vanish by 2030. At the low end of the AEI/Brookings range, the overall US population would shrink by more than 400,000 -- something that has never happened since the country began taking censuses in 1790.



[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-30/trump-immigration-crackdown-could-shrink-us-population-for-first-time



Meanwhile (Score:3, Insightful)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Meanwhile we were already looking at major problems supporting Social Security even with our old immigrant driven growth.

This should have been the expected result of our current immigration policies though as indiscriminately targeting ethnic minorities with government harassment is obviously going to discourage legal immigrants as well as the illegal ones.

Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward

If the income level was raised at which Social Security was taxed, this wouldn't be an issue. Currently, the first $176,000 is taxed. Raise that to $300,000 and Social Security would be fine.

Re:Meanwhile (Score:4, Informative)

by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 )

Make it even higher than that- or remove the cap all together. What's the big idea giving those who don't need it a pass anyway? Something is going to have to change.

SS is the carrot that keeps us all quietly working. You want to start a revolution? End SS.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

Ya, the cap is fucking ridiculous. It should go.

I've been above the cap for over a decade, now (though not for much longer, it's definitely rising faster than my salary these days)

I never understood the logic of exempting the dollars that predominantly go to the labor-exploiting class from paying for the retirement of labor, particularly in this day and age where pensions are all but gone.

Re: (Score:3)

by alcmena ( 312085 )

So the logic that I've heard by someone who sounded reasonably intelligent (ie: not MAGA) is that Social Security has a hard limit on the payout side. To offset the fact that there is a payout limit, they also limit the amount of income that is brought into it. Reasonable people can argue if that should have been the case or not, but it's a decent justification of the income limit.

Remember SS was never designed to be another tax. It was meant to be a taxpayer funded safety net with very strictly defined

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

Congress can't "rob" the money, though.

FICA dollars are immediately invested in special treasuries and dropping into the FICA trust funds. They're untouchable by Congress (without major legislative overhaul, which has never happened)

On one hand, sure you don't want the trust funds to overfill, because Congress must pay the interest on the bonds (which is how the SS trust funds grow), but it's not too hard to think of ways to handle the issue of overshooting growth targets.

Re: (Score:3)

by RobinH ( 124750 )

You could just do what Canada did and (partially) fund it. Meaning Canada saw the demographics happening and long ago instituted a plan where some of the Canada Pension Plan premiums are paid into an investment trust which invests the money (in a broad range of assets) and is designed to keep the program funded even after the demographics have shifted and the ratio of retired people to working people increases. But of course we all think Canada is evil now, so we can't possibly admit that they might have

Re: (Score:2)

by CubicleZombie ( 2590497 )

My understanding is that was the original intent, but congress stole all the money and turned Social Security into a Ponzi scheme.

Re: (Score:2)

by RobinH ( 124750 )

Canada's original CPP was a pay-as-you-go system. It was reformed in 1998 to add partial funding through investment. Then later on they added a fully funded "enhancement". Given reasonable assumptions, the plan should be solvent through at least 2075.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

That's a fantastic idea except we've known about this looming problem for a couple decades now and have not implemented it.

Re: (Score:2)

by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

No it wouldn't. Anyone taxed at the higher cap would be eligible for increased social security payments in the future. You're still robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Re: (Score:2)

by bussdriver ( 620565 )

The wealthy are stealing peoples' wages and rigging the system while their PR people have you worshiping them like a sucker in a cult. Robbery has become the norm and it is going to the rich more than when we had a king doing it...who even had a religion created to justify it! I used to think communists were the most gullible...

Re: Meanwhile (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Immigrants have to pay into social security like everyone else.

In fact a lot of undocumented people pay taxes (usually using someone else's SSN, which has happened to me personally) and they pay into social security but won't be able to collect any. It will be HARDER to fund it without them.

Maybe try learning how any of this works before blathering

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Maybe try reading carefully before posting as you don't seem to be addressing what I'm saying at all.

Re: (Score:2)

by Sique ( 173459 )

> This is why it's time to end social security.

The result will be a steep rise in petty crime, and you will have to pay more taxes to fight the crime, or even for a private security company to keep you safe. And with the rise of petty crime, there will come the rise of crime lords, which organize the petty crime and fight over turf, and you will get a new mob. And it will be 1925 all over again.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Driving away all (both legal and illegal) immigration is doing a hell of a lot more damage than Social Security paying illegal immigrants ever did.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

ugh, sorry.

"Driving away all (both legal and illegal) immigration is doing a hell of a lot more damage to Social Security than paying illegal immigrants ever did."

Not declining... (Score:2)

by greytree ( 7124971 )

Not declining, just getting more small-minded.

Endless growth is impossible (Score:4, Insightful)

by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

This is so obvious that it seems to need no explanation, yet the entire science of economics is based on the fantasy of endless growth

We need steady-state sustainability

There is a chance that population decline along with increased use of automation might balance out

Right?! How is zero growth bad? (Score:3)

by XopherMV ( 575514 )

Damn near every one of the problems we face as a society are made worse by adding extra population. Housing prices are up because we've got too many people. Inflation is up because all those people are competing for the same products. Pollution is up because all those people generate trash and drive cars and heat their homes with fossil fuels. Medical costs are up because we need more nurses and doctors to care for all the additional people.

Re: (Score:3)

by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )

Absolutely not. Housing prices are up because regulation has made building more housing more expensive if not outright impossible. See e.g [1]https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/zoning-land-use-planning-housing-affordability [cato.org] [2]https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-communities-are-rethinking-zoning-improve-housing-affordability-and-access-opportunity [urban.org] [3]https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your [noahpinion.blog]. Inflation is not up because people are competing for products. In fact, inflation is due to a bunch

[1] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/zoning-land-use-planning-housing-affordability

[2] https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-communities-are-rethinking-zoning-improve-housing-affordability-and-access-opportunity

[3] https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your

Re: (Score:2)

by avandesande ( 143899 )

Why do you think there is only one reason for housing costs?

Re: (Score:2)

by Targon ( 17348 )

Zero growth, so the unemployed stay unemployed, and while we have inflation, we end up falling behind.

Go west, young (homeless) man! (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

>> Housing prices are up because we've got too many people.

> Lol have you ever been to the American west? We've got more than enough room for the current population, plus much much more.

Yes, there's plenty of land in the American west... just as long as you don't happen to need water.

Re: (Score:2)

by avandesande ( 143899 )

Imagine the states/cities having to compete with one another to grow....

Re: (Score:2)

by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

Sure worked out for Japan! Er wait...

Needs Policies to Promote Child Births (Score:3, Interesting)

by SScorpio ( 595836 )

As with all "westernized" countries that are looking at population cliffs. Hopefully policies can be enacted that promote people having more or even at least one child.

Right now things are far too overpriced, with a lot of uncertainly. With the proper policies and support that could be changed.

But this isn't just a US problem. Most of Europe, and the "westernized" Asian countries like Japan and Korea are also experiencing this exact same problem.

But when you have young people coming out of college with hundreds of thousands in debt who aren't finding jobs or housing. They generally hold off on starting families. And those that do will limit their size to be smaller than they'd like without economic constraints.

Re: (Score:2)

by dskoll ( 99328 )

It's not just "Westernized" countries, whatever that means. Birth rates are down everywhere , even in countries with traditionally high birth rates.

Examples: Kenya had 7.65 live births per woman in 1960 and is now at 3.26. India went from 5.92 to 1.99. Lebanon 5.88 to 2.26. Saudi Arabia 7.63 to 2.28.

There are no incentives in the world that can meaningfully change those numbers. We just have to adapt to a new reality.

Re: (Score:2)

by anoncoward69 ( 6496862 )

Quite frankly this is a good thing. People shouldn't be popping out this many kids in these 3rd world shit holes.

Re: (Score:2)

by dskoll ( 99328 )

Actually, those "third-world shitholes" use much less energy and fewer resources than wealthy countries. So it's wealthy countries that should be reducing either their consumption or their population.

It depends on how you count (Score:2)

by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 )

For the MAGA dimwits, getting rid of negative value non-white people results in an effective population increase.

Sounds good to me (Score:2)

by Revek ( 133289 )

It sounds like a nightmare for capitalist.

final stage (Score:2)

by roc97007 ( 608802 )

My guess is that we're entering the final stage of Universe 25.

ignoring the politics (Score:2)

by rebootd ( 10503233 )

If you are relying on illegal immigration to maintain or grow a population, there's already a big problem.

Re: ignoring the politics (Score:2)

by slasher999 ( 513533 )

Bingo. Financial strain, delaying starting families for a career, and abortion are the real factors we have a declining population. Two of those three are really uncomfortable for many to confront though, so it's easier to point the finger elsewhere.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Abortion, really? Just how many do you think women are having?

Population is declining (Score:4)

by slasher999 ( 513533 )

You cant rely on illegal immigration to prop up falling birth rates. That's absurd. If we're concerned with why we have a population decline, we should be looking at falling birth rates, not importing bodies.

AI? (Score:2)

by galabar ( 518411 )

Pre-AI, I think this would be a bad thing. Post-AI, it seems like it might actually be preferable.

No shit (Score:2)

by anoncoward69 ( 6496862 )

I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family in the current economic environment. Wages have stagnated, prices and costs have increased. I feel like i'm just barely keeping my head above water. I couldn't imagine having to also pay to house, feed, clothe, pay for activities, toys, hobbies and tech for a couple kids these days.

Not Deportations! (Score:2)

by gurps_npc ( 621217 )

According to this website:

[1]https://www.theglobalstatistic... [theglobalstatistics.com]

In Fiscal year 2024, Biden did 271,484 deportations.

In Fiscal year 2025, Trump did 207,000 deportations.

This only refers to full legal deportations - people sent to Immigration court and ordered out of the country by an special Inquire Officer (a direct employee of the DOJ that works as a 'judge'). It does not include people that after being sent to an immigration holding facility agree to leave the country without contesting it.

The truth is Trump

[1] https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/deportation-statistics-in-the-united-states/

Re: (Score:3)

by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 )

No, they'll still get care- they'll just pay for it with the fortune that only an entire lifetime of easy economic opportunity brings. They spent their whole lives building the very system that's going to suck them dry. There might have been some help to take some of the pressure of, but as a voting bloc, they reliably voted against it every chance they had.

End of life care is now basically built specifically to extract all of the wealth from the boomer generation. When they're gone things are going to dra

Re: (Score:2)

by madbrain ( 11432 )

It's not just end of life care. Half of all healthcare dollars go to treating chronic conditions. If funding is reduced due to demographic problems, it's going to affect healthcare for people of all ages.

Re: (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

>> All those magats in nursing homes with nobody to care for them will be great. They can lie in their own shit.

> No, they'll still get care- they'll just pay for it with the fortune that only an entire lifetime of easy economic opportunity brings.

If there's no workers to take care for them, who are they going to pay with that fortune?

Re:No Shit [Sherlock]! (Score:2)

by shanen ( 462549 )

> Who would have thought that when you have a government hell bent on turning the US into 1930s Nazi Germany, complete with a law enforcement body (ICE) acting like Hitler's Brown Shirts did, disappearing immigrants both legal and illegal and shooting it's own US born citizens at point blank range that anyone who can leave is and people who would've emigrated to the US are looking elsewhere?

Quoted against the censor trolls, though mostly they seem to like "Redundant" moderation abuse. Maybe redundant is not applicable for FP?

On the actual story, my slight curiosity is about the balance. I don't think the YOB has actually deported that many people in absolute terms. The big questions are what the FP said about relative numbers, as in the relative number of people deciding against moving to the "cesspool of the vanities" that America is becoming and the relative number of people deciding to leav

Re: (Score:2)

by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

Jews in 1930s/1940s Germany wish they had only to deal with ICE.

Re: No Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)

by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )

> Hey genius, President Obama deported more than Trump has. But don't let facts get in the way of your TDS meltdown.

And somehow he managed to achieve that without all the drama.

Re: (Score:3)

by DarkOx ( 621550 )

Do think that has something to do with not having an opposition party doing everything they can to manufacture drama about it?

Remember ICE was created by the Home Land Security act which was a NEOCON invention post 9/11. Most of the GOP leadership who supported that were still holding legislative office, still influential party members. It would have been inconvenient to attack Obama on immigration (enforcement anyway, as opposed to things like DACA), to say the least. Not that they would have wanted to be

Re: No Shit! (Score:4, Interesting)

by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )

There are always special interest groups who are highly concerned about various government policies and actions. That's normal.

The drama I'm talking about here is dragging the entire country to the verge of a civil war, all while failing even to match Obama's performance on this key MAGA goal.

Re: No Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)

by nealric ( 3647765 )

No, the press did cover it. I remember it distinctly, including complaints from the left wing of the Democratic party.

The difference was that the Obama administration did it in an orderly manner and followed due process rather than sending a bunch of masked clowns into a city he didn't like and start rounding up anybody with an accent. There was no media circus because ICE was behaving like normal police and wasn't killing people in the process.

This was also the time when Republicans were pretending that they would agree to comprehensive immigration reform if given sufficient border security. You had politicians like Ted Cruz sign onto bills that had a path to citizenship for the undocumented. The thought was that if we could aggressively deport the actual criminal migrants, then maybe we could get agreement to let others stay. The problem was that calls for "border security" before compressive reform were never in good faith. Despite their insistence otherwise, it's clear under the Trump administration that Republicans never supported "legal immigration" or any immigration at all (well, unless the immigrants have $5 million to drop on a "gold card").

Re: No Shit! (Score:4, Insightful)

by nealric ( 3647765 )

Yeah, I must have totally forgotten about the time Obama sent masked agents to go door-to-door looking for anybody with an accent.

Here's the key difference: Obama's policies were bad if you were an immigrant or an immigrant friend/family member. Trump's policies impact everyone in their path because they effectively suspend the 4th amendment for everyone regardless of citizenship (not to mention the thread of summary execution for exercising the 2nd and arrest for exercising the 1st).

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

You must not live anywhere near the border. I've had many interactions with CBP/ICE over a long period of time.

Extra points for the Border Patrol guy who jumped a median, drove the wrong way across a three lane boulevard, and parked on the sidewalk after jumping the curb ... then bailed out and yelled "Choe me jour Aye Dee!!" at me in a thick accent. This was in fucking 1988. I'm super white, Made In the USA, and was a goddamn National Merit Scholar, but there I was with some thug in my face. I demanded

Re: (Score:2)

by flink ( 18449 )

> Yeah, I must have totally forgotten about the time Obama sent masked agents to go door-to-door looking for anybody with an accent.

ICE has always been kinda like this. Trump has certainly worsened it and let them off their leash, because he's interested in using them to punish the people in places he doesn't like. But you can find reporting on them brutalizing detainees and kids in cages and outdoor detention centers going back at least 15 years if not more.

> Here's the key difference: Obama's policies were bad if you were an immigrant or an immigrant friend/family member. Trump's policies impact everyone in their path because they effectively suspend the 4th amendment for everyone regardless of citizenship (not to mention the thread of summary execution for exercising the 2nd and arrest for exercising the 1st).

Ok, so it's fine as long as it's happening to brown people you don't know? Obama sucked on this issue, and Trump sucks worse, but there is no point in defending the former.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

I'm coming at this from the left , retard. Fuck MAGA.

Re: (Score:2, Informative)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

> I already addressed this: the press didn't fucking cover it, for obvious political reasons. If they had, you bet your ass there would have been drama.

What do you call this? [1]https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05... [cnn.com]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/politics/hillary-clinton-immigration-telemundo

Re: (Score:2)

by SleepingEye ( 998933 )

So in the real world, reputation does matter. Even if you believe Obama was "harsh", he gave the impression that he was following the spirit of the rules. Heck, he even tried to treat the deportees with a modicum of respect and opened up Family centers for the detained (an unpopular action by the right) - they're human after all. Meanwhile, you have multiple Supreme court Injunctions -- a right leaning one i might add, with at least one or two picked out specifically by Trump himself - being ignored by

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Good lord, the denial is strong.

Obama's DoJ fought tooth and nail to keep the family detention centers open until a frustrated federal judge got sick of the evasion and assorted bullshit and just called them "inhumane" and ordered them closed. Where the hell were you?

There are of course the blatant violations of the Flores Settlement Agreement (Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)) under Obama. I could go on just from memory.

You could look this shit up, you know.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

I'm coming at the from the left , you flaccid anon clown. Fuck MAGA.

Re: (Score:3, Informative)

by sinij ( 911942 )

The press did cover it, but hardly anyone opposed it, because deporting people that entered country illegally is not that controversial.

Re: (Score:3)

by sit1963nz ( 934837 )

Like Obama not being born in the USA ?

That kind of political cover up by right wing media ?

Perhaps it was because he was doing thing things legally without any stormtroopers

Re: No Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

The press covered it. I read several articles on it at the time so I cannot be gaslit by your clown ass.

Re: No Shit! (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Well then search my posting history.

However, we can already tell that you're just playing bullshit performative games here by pretending that Obama's enforcement was not different in that it was not simply a cover for implementing fascism, so no matter what you are not going to impress anyone here.

Re: (Score:2)

by parityshrimp ( 6342140 )

I hear you saying that because Fox News, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh didn't cover Obama's immigration enforcement actions, that means "the press" didn't cover this topic.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

I hear you saying that you can only see things through a partisan prism. This makes you part of the rot at the core of this country.

Guess what? I voted Green in the past three presidential elections, voted for Obama in 2008, and mostly vote (D) in local elections for lack of any sane alternative. I'm coming at this from the left , you defective buttplug, and with a strong ethical compass. I've been making these same arguments with brainless propaganda swallowers from both "sides" like you for decades: you

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Were 5 year olds sent to detention centers? [1]https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]

How about American citizens shot dead in the street?

Fuck you.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/ice-arrests-five-year-old-boy-minnesota

Re: (Score:3)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Yes. You would know this if you gave a shit about the subject when Democrats were in office: [1]Family Detention During Obama Administration [aila.org]

> The Obama administration's massive expansion of family detention began in the summer of 2014 and will incarcerate thousands of asylum-seeking children and mothers who are fleeing extreme violence in the Northern Triangle region of Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) this year.

Immigrants' rights groups and others were furious with Obama, whose DoJ fought tooth and nail to keep the family detention centers open until a federal judge finally called them "inhumane" and ordered (some of) them closed.

[1] https://www.aila.org/library/detention

Re: No Shit! (Score:5, Insightful)

by nealric ( 3647765 )

Yes, people did give a shit when Democrats were in office, and in fact protested about it. However, one HUGE difference is that the Obama administration had no policy of family separation. 5-year-olds were not rounded up alone or used as bait for their parents. Family detention was used when families came as groups to the border- the Obama administration wasn't snatching kids off the streets of American cities.

Re: (Score:2)

by Targon ( 17348 )

Were CITIZENS being assaulted by immigration while Obama was in office? How about citizens being assaulted by ICE? You fail to understand the backlash against what is going on, where the US Constitution is being ignored. EVERYONE has protection against illegal search and seizure in this country, that means citizens, legal residents, and even illegal residents of this country. If they have an actual warrant, then that is one thing, but ICE doesn't get a warrant, they break into the homes of citizens

Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

> Were CITIZENS being assaulted by immigration while Obama was in office?

Yes. Even I had run-ins with CBP & ICE. Fuck off.

Re: (Score:2)

by SleepingEye ( 998933 )

Clarify: Were you shot, spit on, had your home barged into, demanded your papers or you'd be thrown in jail? If so, provide a case number since you're so staunchly fierce that you'd fight tooth and nail, I'm sure you'd file a report. We can FOIA that shit and be outraged at your being illegally handled. If not, I'm sorry for your slightly negative treatment.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Nice try. You asked a question, and I answered it.

I'm to the left of most people on this issue, dumbfuck. Have you ever been on the Mexican side of the fence and watched your friends bet their lives on crossing like I did almost 40 years ago?

Re: (Score:2)

by madbrain ( 11432 )

They are down to 18 months old now.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/toddler-was-returned-ice-custody-denied-medication-after-hospitalization-lawsuit-2026-02-08/

And one common thread - being denied medical care. And she is not the only one, there are many reports of this.

These are concentration camps.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

> CBP/ICE has been doing horrific shit to babies and everyone else for decades, but your fake concern will evaporate when it's no longer useful to the people who are manipulating you.

And guess who gave them an inflated budget. [1]https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21... [npr.org]

Were they running around with masks and unmarked rental vans under the previous administration?

[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/01/21/nx-s1-5674887/ice-budget-funding-congress-trump

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Seems like Obama got more bang for his inhumane buck.

I fucking hate the masks, but yes there were masked thugs in the Obama years. It has grown more prevalent now, with the excuse (not unfounded) that officers are getting doxxed and their families harassed by counterproductive idiots. In other words, the people who think they are helping are making it worse.

I will burn you to the ground on this subject after more than 50 years of living right on the Mexican border, including on the Mexican side, and b

Re: (Score:3)

by madbrain ( 11432 )

That's patently false. You know nothing about my beliefs. The deprivation of medical care by ICE is something new under this administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ice-cut-detainees-off-medical-212322344.html

They certainly have the budget to pay for it. They are intentionally not doing so.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

> The deprivation of medical care by ICE is something new under this administration.

How dumb can you be? [1]Report Shows Poor Medical Care Led to Deaths at U.S. Detention Center [detentionw...etwork.org]

> For Immediate Release

> Thursday, February 18, 2016

> Report Shows Poor Medical Care Led to Deaths at U.S. Detention Centers Exposes Extreme Cases of Substandard Medical Care

>

> WASHINGTON, DC รข" A report, Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, released today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Detention Watch Network (DWN) and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), examines egregious violations of medical standards by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that played a significant role in the deaths of eight people in detention centers across the country.

Now you're gonna tell me the ACLU is part of the MAGA network?

[1] https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/pressroom/releases/2016/fatal-neglect

Re: (Score:2)

by maladroit ( 71511 )

ICE and CPB have always sucked, and have always been terrible.

But your shtick about how this makes the current regime the same is just fucking stupid. This is a massive escalation of awfulness on every front.

Some examples:

- Sending people to be tortured in El Salvador.

- Openly defying almost 100 court orders.

- Arresting people who are here legally at their hearings.

- Shooting US citizens in the back, and then instantly halting any investigation into the incident.

- Raiding churches and schools.

- Claiming tha

Re: (Score:2)

by maladroit ( 71511 )

Most of the people being arrested are here legally.

And they are still people. Your celebration of what is happening to them is assholeish, to the point of sociopathy.

I am planning to ignore anything else you post here. You are not worth any more of my time.

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Try overstaying your visa in "enlightened" countries like France. They will throw you in prison for working there illegally.

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

> The only way for democrats to win this is to get out ahead of it, promise to keep deporting people but in a humane way, and then actually carry through on it. I don't personally believe they're capable, but I pray that they are. Otherwise it's going to be more of this every 4 years.

I'm with you on most of your post but that sounds like what the Democrats were already doing and that wasn't solving the problem.

What we need is proper reform of our immigration laws, especially on the employer end. Illegal immigrants come here for work, if there's no one willing or able to hire them then their numbers will be radically reduced to levels where the problem won't really matter.

Re: No Shit! (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

What we need is to stop doing coups in Latin America. How come nobody ever wants to address the root cause?

90% of all media is billionaire owned (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

Nobody wants to address the root cause because they don't understand it. Getting people to understand that widespread illegal immigration is primarily caused by imperialism is way too complicated and idea for most voters. Go look up the reading level of most Americans and well, despair.

A huge part of why Trump is so popular is that although everything he says is nonsense he uses words people understand. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden for example have an extremely bad habit of talking at a 10th or even 12th

Re: (Score:2)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

That is part of another root cause. There are two ends to this problem, Latin American poverty and instability and American employers. On one side you have people who need jobs and on the other you have people offering them. Eliminate one of the problems and no one has a reason to come here anymore so the problem mostly solves itself. Unfortunately the US not screwing over Latin America alone won't solve their third world problems where as addressing the problem on the American employer end seems quite appr

Re: (Score:2)

by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 )

Very sensible response, bravo.

Re: (Score:3)

by skam240 ( 789197 )

Hey genius, President Obama also accomplished this without sending masked goons into our cities to harass ethnic minorities which is what the above is talking about.

Re: (Score:3)

by Targon ( 17348 )

Obama didn't have immigration shooting citizens with ZERO accountability. When citizens and legal residents of this country need to be afraid of being killed or even just assaulted by the thugs people like you love so much, that's a VERY large problem, along with the violations of the US Constitution, which has protections against unlawful search and seizure. Now, "It's ICE, if you tell them they can't come in and search your home, you suggest that it's our fault when ICE blasts chemical weapons in our

Re: (Score:3)

by Comboman ( 895500 )

Obama somehow managed to deport more people than Trump without turning cities into warzones and murdering citizens. I guess it's just one more thing that Obama was better at than Trump.

Re: (Score:2)

by goldspider ( 445116 )

It's almost as if the deportations aren't the problem. Maybe one day you'll figure this out.

Re:+1 Informative (Score:5, Insightful)

by Zagnar ( 722415 )

OP is referring to them as brown shirts because they're being used for intimidation, amassing in blue cities like Minneapolis instead of red states that actually need and want immigration enforcement. They also break laws, violate the constitution and kill people, then lie afterward to cover it up.

The issue for most people isn't immigration enforcement, but how it's being done.

Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

The brown shirts were at least man enough to show their faces. I guarantee all these masked gang members were screaming about not being able to breathe when Target asked them to wear a mask while shopping.

Re: (Score:2)

by Ogive17 ( 691899 )

What we've got is ICE-is.

Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward

> OP is referring to them as brown shirts because they're being used for intimidation, amassing in blue cities like Minneapolis instead of red states that actually need and want immigration enforcement. They also break laws, violate the constitution and kill people, then lie afterward to cover it up.

> The issue for most people isn't immigration enforcement, but how it's being done.

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. ICE is operating nationwide. The problems in blue cities like Minneapolis are caused by their policies and their incitement of violence. Everywhere else ICE gets the cooperation of law enforcement and just uneventfully picks people up.

Re: +1 Informative (Score:4, Insightful)

by kenh ( 9056 )

> OP is referring to them as brown shirts because they're being used for intimidation, amassing in blue cities like Minneapolis instead of red states that actually need and want immigration enforcement.

The reason there are so many federal agents massing in "blue cities" is because the criminal illegal immigrants (a distinct sub group of illegal immigrants, who are themselves a distinct subgroup of all immigrants) in the "blue cities" are released onto the street by "blue city" police because "blue city" politicians tell them to, and refusing to hand them over to ICE at the prisons and jails they are in (a controlled hand-off). So, to collect a rapist, spouse abuser, etc ICE has to roll into a neighborhood and pick them up at home. Instead of requiring two ICE officers for a controlled hand-off, it can take a dozen or more to secure the location AND do crowd control when all the "blue city" residents show up and protest removing the criminal illegal immigrant.

Conversely, "red states" participate in controlled hand-offs so there is no need for a dozen or so agents to roll into a neighborhood to pick up a convicted rapist, etc.

Oh, and when ICE agents enter a room to capture a wanted criminal illegal alien, their SOP is to determine the immigration/citizenship status of everyone in the room, removing anyone illegally in the country from the room as well.

As for the "shooting of U.S. citizens", the two deaths we know of prove that it is very dangerous to lay hands on a federal agent while arresting someone (esp, but not only, when you are carrying a loaded gun) OR to not put yourself in a situation where you hit a federal officer with your car. Those are the reasons two U.S. citizens were shot.

H, and for completeness, the 5 year-old boy wasn't used as bait to capture his dad, he was with his dad when ICE went to capture him, his dad ran away, abandoning his son in front of ICE agents, and because democrats have whipped the immigrant community into such a frenzy the boys own mother refused to open the door to let him in his own home. ICE asked the father what to do, he (the father) REQUESTED to keep the 5 year-old with him in detention... To the father that was preferable to Child Protective Services, and the boys own mother refused to reclaim her 5 year-old from the agents.

Re: No Shit! (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Harris told them not to come.

Re: No Shit! (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Israel isn't literally Nazi, but they are marching to an effectively identical tune, yes. They are doing a genocide and we are paying for it. In fact it's why we founded their country for them in the first place.

Re: (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> The planet is overpopulated. The US is more overpopulated than most regions.

?

Not sure why you think this. At 37 people per square kilometer, the US is not "more overpopulated than most regions". Even if you don't count Alaska, the US population density is only 44 people per square kilometer, which would place it 176th out of 245 in the list of countries by population density.

Pretty low compared to actually overpopulated countries, or even, say, most of Europe-- for example, the UK has 285 people per square km, or Germany with 242 people per square km.

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

Low IQ?

Is this some racist ass drivel?

I worked with a lot of Mexicans, Guatemalans, and El Savadorans when I was in college (food service industry) and some Afghani refugees after the pull-out (Network Engineers)

I wouldn't classify any of them as low IQ. What makes you say that?

Re: (Score:3)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

> quick lets flood the country with low IQ third worlders!

Have you looked at the current cabinet?

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

Seriously, I don't think I've ever met an immigrant, legal or otherwise (and I've worked with both) that comes anywhere fuuuuuuucking close to being as just jaw-droppingly stupid as him, or the motherfuckers in that dude's cabinet.

I'm pretty contrarian, and pride myself in always trying to look at things from the perspective of the Devil's Advocate, but come the fuck on. I'll be the first to take a shot at someone I consider to be the liberal version of a MAGA voter. These people are actual fucking morons

Re: (Score:2)

by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )

s/help/helm/;

Re: (Score:3)

by DrMrLordX ( 559371 )

That certainly is a reversal. Usually they vote Democrat:

[1]https://apnews.com/article/cri... [apnews.com]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/criminal-investigations-columbia-fort-lauderdale-florida-elections-44b7856b900736ccef40c04605649661

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.