Nate Hochman Profile picture
Jan 14 17 tweets 8 min read Read on X
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. 🧵 Image
Image
Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
Image
Image
Image
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. Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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. Image
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%. Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
Image
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). Image
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: Image
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
 

Keep Current with Nate Hochman

Nate Hochman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @njhochman

Jan 16
Mass deportations aren't the only way to send immigrants home.

With the right incentives, some will leave on their own.

"Voluntary remigration" has worked in Europe. It can work in America, too.

A quick thread. (1/9) Image
Obviously, it should go without saying that any successful large-scale repatriation effort will require mass deportations.

We've done that before, too—and we can (and must) do it again.

I wrote a thread about this yesterday. (2/9)
But deportations aren't the only tool in our arsenal. We can use carrots and sticks.

"Remigration" has become a popular term among anti-immigration activists in Europe. The head of Germany's AfD used it in a speech this weekend.

Trump himself used the term in September. (3/9) Image
Image
Read 10 tweets
Jan 10
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.Image
Image
Image
Image
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. Image
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. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jan 8
It's not just Britain, by the way. This is happening all across the West.

It's tough to measure immigrant crime in the U.S., because very few states track immigration status in their criminal justice system.

But Europe does. And the numbers are genuinely incredible. 🧵 Image
Take Germany, for example—the country with the largest share of refugees in Europe.

Foreigners are just 12% of the German population. But they account for 67% of gang rape suspects.

Afghans alone are 70 TIMES more likely to be involved in gang rapes than Germans. Image
Image
In Germany, foreigners make up just 13% of the population. But as a share of crime suspects, they are responsible for:

Homicides: 42%
Rapes: 37%
Assaults: 32%
Burglaries: 39%

That's especially true for certain nationalities—and for certain crimes.

(H/T @Marc_Vanguard_i) Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 15 tweets
Jan 6
It's true — the mainstream media did cover the grooming gangs.

But in Britain, that coverage amounted to one of the most extraordinary mass-scale gaslighting exercises in the history of the modern press. Image
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." Image
Image
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." Image
Read 9 tweets
Jan 4
Trump's offer to buy Greenland was treated as a tongue-in-cheek joke by friends and foes alike. But it was never as crazy as his critics claimed.

This week, it became a real political possibility.

That doesn't mean it's a sure bet.

But it could—and should—actually happen. 🧵 Image
Back in 2019, when Trump first proposed to buy Greenland, the Prime Minister of Denmark—which currently owns Greenland—called it "absurd."

This week, Greenland announced their intent to pursue independence from Denmark. The PM says the process has "already begun." Image
Image
Now, to be clear, Greenland's political leadership has maintained that they aren't interested in being acquired—at least for now.

Last month, Greenland's PM insisted that "we are not for sale and will never be for sale." (Although he didn't specifically mention Trump's offer). Image
Read 16 tweets
Oct 16, 2024
This guy is from the reddest congressional district in North Carolina.

Just an unbelievable betrayal.
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. Image
Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(