In 1954, 750 Border Patrol agents deported 1.1 million illegals in the space of a few months.
Today, we have 21,000 Border Patrol agents—and far more advanced technology.
Mass deportations are reasonable, necessary and possible. We've done it before—and we can do it again. 🧵
Trump wants the largest deportation force in history. His critics say that's too costly, complicated and cruel.
They're wrong. We should start making that argument now. Support for deportations is at record highs—but once they start, the media is going to try to change that.
There are two main categories here: "Returns" and "Removals."
"Returns" are voluntary departures—illegal aliens choosing to leave on their own without a formal deportation order.
"Removals" are what we think of as deportations—compulsory and based on a formal order of removal.
Deportations have been climbing for decades.
Barack Obama actually deported a record number of people—more than 3 million. (Although interior removals declined relative to the overall illegal population). He was nicknamed the "deporter in chief" by his left-wing critics.
There have been various points in American history—under both Republican and Democrat presidents—where we've mass-mobilized resources to repel a border invasion.
Clinton launched Operation Gatekeeper. Bush and Obama both deployed the National Guard to help apprehend illegals.
To be clear, what President Trump is aiming to do is more ambitious.
As of July 2023, an estimated 11.7 million illegal aliens lived in the US. Some estimate it's far more.
To fix this decades-long crisis, Trump will have to deport more than any other president in history.
But this, too, has a precedent.
The most successful mass deportation in American history happened in 1954—exactly 70 years ago.
A program known as "Operation Wetback" removed 1.1 million illegal aliens in just a few months.
Here's the kicker: They did it with only 750 agents.
In 1954, America faced a crisis similar to ours: 3 million illegal aliens had crossed the border over the past few years.
The farm industry was exploiting the cheap migrant labor to pay half the American wage—and they were paying off local officials to look the other way.
Ranchers were paying illegal workers about half the going American wage. Senior US immigration officials "had friends among the ranchers"—so they looked the other way. Border Patrol agents didn't dare make arrests on certain farms, because their bosses had political connections.
Powerful politicians like Sen. Lyndon Johnson (D) of Texas were in bed with influential vested interests, such as ranchers and growers, who wanted cheap migrant labor to pick their crops and tend their herds.
From 1944-1954, illegal immigration from Mexico increased 6,000%.
President Eisenhower's solution was to go around the establishment. He appointed Gen. Joseph Swing—his old West Point classmate—to head immigration enforcement.
Swing's first move: Transfer corrupt officials away from the border—and replace them with men who would do their job.
On June 17, 1954, "Operation Wetback" began. It started in California and Arizona, but by mid-July, it had extended into the rest of the interior.
By the end of July, the 750 agents had caught over 50,000 illegals—and another 488,000 illegals had voluntarily fled the country.
Over half a million, in one month—with 750 agents.
In just two years, Border Patrol "had virtually halted illegal immigration across the entire 2,000-mile US-Mexico frontier."
Once "removals" began, "voluntary returns" spiked. Illegal workers saw which way the wind was blowing.
Another innovation: They didn't just drop deportees at the border, where they could easily hop back across into America.
They used buses, trains, planes and ships to take them more than 500 miles south into Mexico. Many were met at the border with specially chartered trains.
It worked.
By the end of the 1950s, illegal immigration had declined by 95%. In just a few years, America hadn't just deported the surge of illegal immigrants who had entered our country—we had eliminated the problem of illegal immigration altogether. (For at least a time).
What this shows is that large-scale mass deportations are not only possible—they become easier as you go. Once you start deporting en masse, many illegals will voluntarily leave the country.
Here's what some Border Patrol veterans of Operation Wetback said in a 2006 interview:
To reiterate: This was achieved with 750 agents—1/28th of the Border Patrol force today. With 1950s-era surveillance, apprehension and transportation capabilities.
Mass deportations are not "impossible"—far from it. We have the tools. We just need the political will to use them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It really is remarkable how quickly the illusions of modern liberalism evaporate, once the social order collapses.
The California fires started on Tuesday. Within literal hours, the looting began. "Groups of men" were pulling up to homes en masse—by the hundreds, according to some eyewitnesses—in cars and scooters, across Los Angeles. Wherever the fires burned, they appeared.
This was their first instinct—their primal reflex—in the Hobbesian state of nature. Others secured the safety of family and friends, helped neighbors evacuate, even volunteered to aid affected communities. But not the looters. The very instant they were no longer constrained by the law, they reverted to violent anarchism.
Civilization does not live equally within everyone. For some, it's an external imposition. It's only the threat of brute force—the state's "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence"—that keeps them within the confines of the social contract. Once that's lifted, these distinctions are immediately laid bare.
The truth is that there are simply people who are antisocial by nature, and their capacity for living in an advanced society is made possible only by a vigilant law. This has been true in every place and time, and it remains true today, as uncomfortable as it may be to our modern sensitivities. The tragedy in California is a testament to that.
Liberal anthropology holds the opposite. It's "environmentalist"—not the popular meaning (i.e., caring about climate change), but in the sense of believing that humans are products of their environment, rather than their innate natures. "Born free, but everywhere in chains," etc.
But it's simply impossible to blame what's happening in California on "socioeconomic conditions." If these people were driven by material desperation—by a desire for basic security—they would be dashing for the exit, like everyone else. Instead, they went for the flat-screen TVs.
The authorities were so committed to denying that any one group was to blame for this behavior—and so determined to smear anyone who suggested otherwise—that people's "fear of being seen as racist" actually "hindered the detection of and intervention in abuse."
Here's the (left-wing!) British journalist who did one of the first investigations into the scandal, writing in 2017:
"Despite the quality of material I had amassed, it took me until 2007 to get my first piece published because some editors feared an accusation of racism."
This is a serious—even existential—problem in red America.
Any conservative who's done work at the state level knows that the deep-red states often have the most egregiously liberal Republicans. This is something @RMConservative talks about a lot:
This is true across the board, on any number of key issues. It's something I discovered almost immediately after getting into politics. My first few big breaks were investigative pieces about the mind-bogglingly bad state of local GOPs in the deepest-red parts of the country.