Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

The Biden-Harris Version of Trump’s ‘Cruel’ Mass Deportation of Immigrant Families – with No Media Freakout

Published

15 minute read

ICE forces immigrant families to board a deportation flight in McAllen, Texas. November 2021 photo by Todd Bensman

From The Center for Immigration Studies

By Todd Bensman 

The profound hypocrisy of the outrage machine now ginning up against Trump’s coming deportation machine

Democratic Party oppositionists, immigrant advocates, and their U.S. media allies are mobilized and dug in with sharpened staves for all-out political war against one of President-elect Donald Trump’s signature plans: “the greatest mass deportation in American history,” as he has put it.

In harbingers of the kind of framing to come, opponents of immigration law are choosing metaphoric language harkening to the Nazi holocaust machine and the Bosnian civil war.

“Immigration Lawyers Prepare to Battle Trump in Court Again,” reads one typical recent New York Times headline over a story calling the Trump plans “harsh” and describing how battalions of immigration lawyers and civil liberties groups are mobilizing to wage total legal and political war to stop them.

“We literally have a blueprint of what they are planning to do, and so we had months and months to figure out how to protect people,” the paper quoted Becca Heller, founder of the International Refugee Assistance Project, saying. “Trump has told us what to expect – hate and persecution and concentration camps.”

“Ethnic cleansing,” Los Angeles Times reporter Ronald Brownstein called the plan in an X post when Tom Homan, the former head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement just appointed to spearhead the initiative, told a visibly offended 60 Minutes interviewer that whole families will be deported together to avoid “family separation.”

The liberal Mother Jones magazine expressed outrage, falsely claiming that Homan said U.S. citizen children would be deported. The New Republic screamed that the mass deportation policy proposal confirmed that real action would back every “hateful word spewed” at Trump’s “fascist” rallies.

But in his 60 Minutes interview, one of Homan’s potentially most illuminating comments went unexplored.

“We’ve done it before,” Homan told the interviewer about deporting families together in large numbers.

In that, Homan was exactly right. It wasn’t, however, Donald Trump or Homan who did it but the Biden-Harris administration, secretively and never covered by major media and continuing to this day.

In 2021 and 2022, the Biden-Harris administration launched an ICE air operation that has mass-deported by air as many as 550,000 often Central American immigrants to date – keeping together whole families that included babes in mother’s arms. I know this because I remain perhaps the only American writer who witnessed, videotaped, and reported the massive airlift while it happened at unmarked hangers by plain-clothed ICE agents driving unmarked vehicles putting them onto unmarked ICE-contracted jets in small, out-of-the-way U.S. airports.

I wrote video and print dispatches for the Center for Immigration Studies website and dedicated most of an entire chapter to the operation in my 2023 book, OVERRUN: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History.

While these are considerably smaller than what the incoming Trump administration envisions, recounting these 2021-present Biden-Harris operations today serves two important purposes in the new context of a second Trump presidency and the coming all-out information war offensive against it in the coming year.

For starters, the fact that Biden-Harris carried out family deportation flights spotlights the profound dual-standard hypocrisy of today’s emerging crop of political warfighters and their media supporters because Donald Trump is doing it rather than the president they liked and wanted to politically protect.

Secondly, the Biden-Harris mass deportation airlift, although it is probably smaller in scale than what’s coming, provides an important value for the next administration – as a sound operational blueprint for those in the Trump administration who will carry it out.

The Biden-Harris mass deportation airlift for immigrant families begins

The Biden-Harris mass family deportation program was born of an internal White House conflict (well reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal) between progressives who’d engineered the historic mass migration over the southern border that began on Inauguration Day 2021 and more pragmatic administration figures who only a few months later were greatly fearing heavy political losses for Democrats at the November 2022 mid-term elections. Among the latter were, for instance, White House chief of staff Ron Klain, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and Domestic Policy Council Adviser Susan Rice among others, as I reported in detail in OVERRUN’s Chapter 15, titled “White House Rebellion.”

Initially, the White House pragmatists won permission from Biden himself to start the flights in August 2021, one month after a record-setting 213,000 July border apprehensions generated negative international headlines and, notably, low polling numbers for Democrats as a 2022 mid-term election issue. They felt like they had to drive the numbers down through the potent deterrence that removal flights provide.

At the time, the pandemic-era “Title 42” instant pushback policy was still technically in place, although the progressives on Inauguration Day had torn huge exemptions into it to let in families, unaccompanied minors, and extra-continentals from around the world, which had led to immediate historic crossing levels within two months.

The pragmatists decided to use Title 42 as the legal basis for these removal flights.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did publicly announce “expedited removal” flights would commence for “certain families who recently arrived at the southern border … and do not have a legal basis to stay in the United States.” The DHS statement hinted obliquely that the aim of the flights was to persuade migrants from Central America, among the most populous of border crossers, to stay home on grounds that “irregular migration … is especially dangerous for families and children.”

At first, they targeted Guatemalan, Honduran, Salvadoran, and Venezuelan family groups because those nationalities were the most numerous crossers, although the flights sharply escalated after the catastrophic September 2021 Del Rio bridge crisis when 15,000 Haitians poured over the Rio Grande all at once and drew even more intensive international media attention. Haitians were added to the target list as were a half dozen other high-volume nationalities over time, such as Brazilians and Ecuadorians.

But starkly unlike what is happening now with Trump’s plan, there was little to no public outrage or information-war preparation over the Biden deportations, which require detentions of families ahead of the flights and are ongoing.

While some Initial media reports back in 2021 indicated the first Biden flights ran into delays, coverage of what happened next dried up entirely as those flights have sharply escalated and remain steady even now as illegal immigration advocates and their media support networks express only outrage at the coming Trump program.

I got onto the story four months after the Biden-Harris flights began, when the flights were escalating. Eventually, I was able to personally observe and report on ICE loading up planes with detained women and children at the McAllen, Texas, international airport. (See Don’t Look Now, but ICE is Deporting Some Central American Families by Air, December 1, 2021, Center for Immigration Studies.)

The monthly flights soon doubled, and then doubled again. I kept writing, but still, no one has much publicly complained, let alone gone to war over them.

Biden’s Blueprint for Trump

At first, the Biden-Harris jets flew many of the families directly to Guatemala and Honduras tarmacs.

But the Biden-Harris State Department got the Mexican government involved in a collaboration. The flights could land in the southern Mexican cities of Tapachula and Villahermosa. The Mexican government, in a barely reported September 2021 agreement with the Biden administration, would transport the arriving deportees by bus to Honduras and El Salvador.

The flights program didn’t go completely unnoticed by pro-immigration advocacy groups, which mainly complained privately to the administration and kept the newspapers out of it. An outraged anti-deportation group called Witness at the Border had been tracking what it termed “Death Flights” under Trump and issuing solid analyses for its side of the cause.

Witness at the Border’s Thomas Cartwright, a retired banking executive and migration advocate who tracks removal flights as a volunteer, noticed that progressively declining numbers of flights during opening months of the Biden administration suddenly skyrocketed from a mere 46 removal flights in July 2021 to a “stunning” 193 in September 2021, he reported.

Some of that increase was attributable to “the massive Haiti expulsion program” (to empty the Del Rio camp), Cartwright later told me in an interview, but also to a major new expansion of the flights to Guatemala and to Tapachula and Villahermosa in southern Mexico.

By the end of Biden’s first 12 months, the administration had sent off 1,931 removal flights using five charter carriers (IAero, World Atlantic, GlobalX, Eastern Air, and OMNI). The Biden flights had eclipsed Trump’s last year of flights by 116.

And the Biden-Harris administration aggressively expanded them as the mid-term elections approached. During 2022, the Biden-Harris DHS was sending flights to 16 other countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and even as far as Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, India, and Vietnam.

The administration secretively renewed flights to Haiti long after the Del Rio camp debacle, too. (See: Biden Administration Secretively Renews Daily Air-Repatriation Flights to Haiti, CIS January 27, 2022).

By Spring of 2022, in fact, the Biden-Harris flights of one single year surpassed flights sent by Trump in all four of his years.

The Biden-Harris administration never advertised what it was doing nor released information about the flight numbers (and never responded to my requests for details and interviews.)

But assuming a conservative 100 deportees per flight (many planes had capacity for 135-150 passengers, they returned at the very least 195,000 women, children and single men by the end of that first year. The number, Cartwright told me in an interview, probably well exceeded 250,000.

In his most recent report, Cartright reports that the Biden-Harris administration has sent a total of 5,219 flights, including 1,598 in just the last 12 months.

Collectively, these amount to an estimated 575,000 immigrant air deportations since August 2021, including 175,000 just since January 2024.

There was plenty of evidence that the flights did suppress and deter targeted nationalities from coming so long as the flights continued. (See: Expanding Air Deportations Coincide with Falling Border Apprehensions, CIS February 22, 2022)

The Biden expulsion flights were “incontrovertible” evidence, Cartwright complained in a June 2022 monthly report on his group’s website, that the airlift was “a significant strategic imperative” of the Biden administration because they worked as “an impactful tool…to deter migration through the threat of immediate return.”

But clearly, the flights never reached a sufficient volume to deter the millions of migrants the administration still let in after illegal border crossings.

Presumably, this is why the incoming Trump administration sees a need to drastically increase the volumes.

The takeaway here is that the incoming administration can probably borrow parts of what the Biden-Harris administration built and expand the infrastructure and diplomatic arrangements with new receiving countries.

Double standards

Still, the absence of serious public opposition to any of the Biden-Harris program or mention of it by major media outlets currently airing criticism only of the proposed Trump program warrants consideration as fact in context not currently provided anywhere.

As the American public witnesses the wild fury of politicization over the Trump program, someone might think to ask Homan what, exactly, he meant when he told 60 Minutes that ICE already has long experience deporting immigrant families who entered the country and remain illegally.

Uncategorized

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Yes. He must be disqualified. I find it incredible that Mark Carney would allow someone to run for his party that called for a Canadian citizen to be handed over to a foreign government on a bounty, a foreign government that would almost certainly execute that Canadian citizen.

 

“Think about that for a second. We have a Liberal MP saying that a Canadian citizen should be handed over to a foreign dictatorship to get a bounty so that that citizen could be murdered. And Mark Carney says he should stay on as a candidate. What does that say about whether Mark Carney would protect Canadians?

“Mark Carney is deeply conflicted. Just in November, he went to Beijing and secured a quarter-billion-dollar loan for his company from a state-owned Chinese bank. He’s deeply compromised, and he will never stand up for Canada against any foreign regime. It is another reason why Mr. Carney must show us all his assets, all the money he owes, all the money that his companies owe to foreign hostile regimes. And this story might not be entirely the story of the bounty, and a Liberal MP calling for a Canadian to be handed over for execution to a foreign government might not be something that the everyday Canadian can relate to because it’s so outrageous. But I ask you this, if Mark Carney would allow his Liberal MP to make a comment like this, when would he ever protect Canada or Canadians against foreign hostility?

“He has never put Canada first, and that’s why we cannot have a fourth Liberal term. After the Lost Liberal Decade, our country is a playground for foreign interference. Our economy is weaker than ever before. Our people more divided. We need a change to put Canada first with a new government that will stand up for the security and economy of our citizens and take back control of our destiny. Let’s bring it home.”

 

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Canada Needs A Real Plan To Compete Globally

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie 

Ottawa’s ideological policies have left Canada vulnerable. Strategic action is needed now

As Canada navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the next federal government must move beyond reflexive anti—Americanism regardless of its political leanings. Instead, Canada should prioritize national interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict and subservience.

The notion that Canada can stand alone is as misguided as the idea that it is only an economic appendage of the United States. Both perspectives have influenced policy in Ottawa at different times, leading to mistakes.

Rather than engaging in futile name-calling or trade disputes, Canada must take strategic steps to reinforce its autonomy. This approach requires a pragmatic view rooted in Realpolitik—recognizing global realities, mitigating risks, governing for the whole country, and seizing opportunities while abandoning failed ideologies.

However, if Washington continues to pursue protectionist measures, Canada must find effective ways to counteract the weakened position Ottawa has placed the country in over the past decade.

One key strategy is diversifying trade relationships, notably by expanding economic ties with emerging markets such as India and Southeast Asia. This will require repairing Canada’s strained relationship with India and regaining political respect in China.

Unlike past Liberal trade missions, which often prioritized ideological talking points over substance, Canada must negotiate deals that protect domestic industries rather than turning summits into platforms for moral posturing.

A more effective approach would be strengthening partnerships with countries that value Canadian resources instead of vilifying them under misguided environmental policies. Expand LNG exports to Europe and Asia and leverage Canada’s critical minerals sector to establish reciprocal supply chains with non-Western economies, reducing economic reliance on the U.S.

Decades of complacency have left Canada vulnerable to American influence over its resource sector. Foreign-funded environmental groups have weakened domestic energy production, handing U.S. industries a strategic advantage. Ottawa must counter this by ensuring Canadian energy is developed at home rather than allowing suppressed domestic production to benefit foreign competitors.

Likewise, a robust industrial policy—prioritizing mining, manufacturing, and agricultural resilience—could reduce dependence on U.S. and Chinese imports. This does not mean adopting European-style subsidies but rather eliminating excessive regulations that make Canadian businesses uncompetitive, including costly domestic carbon tariffs.

Another key vulnerability is Canada’s growing military dependence on the U.S. through NORAD and NATO. While alliances are essential, decades of underfunding and neglect have turned the Canadian Armed Forces into little more than a symbolic force. Canada must learn self-reliance and commit to serious investment in defence.

Increasing defence spending—not to meet NATO targets but to build deterrence—is essential. Ottawa must reform its outdated procurement processes and develop a domestic defence manufacturing base, reducing reliance on foreign arms deals.

Canada’s vast Arctic is also at risk. Without continued investment in northern sovereignty, Ottawa may find itself locked out of its own backyard by more assertive global powers.

For too long, Canada has relied on an economic model that prioritizes federal redistribution over wealth creation and productivity. A competitive tax regime—one that attracts investment instead of punishing success—is essential.

A capital gains tax hike might satisfy activists in Toronto, but it does little to attract investments and encourage economic growth. Likewise, Ottawa must abandon ideological green policies that threaten agri-food production, whether by overregulating farmers or ranchers. At the same time, it must address inefficiencies in supply management once and for all. Canada must be able to feed a growing world without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

Ottawa must also create an environment where businesses can innovate and grow without excessive regulatory burdens. This includes eliminating interprovincial trade barriers that stifle commerce.

Similarly, Canada’s tech sector, long hindered by predatory regulations, should be freed from excessive government interference. Instead of suffocating innovation with compliance mandates, Ottawa should focus on deregulation while implementing stronger security measures for foreign tech firms operating in Canada.

Perhaps Ottawa’s greatest mistake is its knee-jerk reactions to American policies, made without a coherent long-term strategy. Performative trade disputes with Washington and symbolic grandstanding in multilateral organizations do little to advance Canada’s interests.

Instead of reacting emotionally, Canada must take proactive steps to secure its economic, resource, and defence future. That is the role of a responsible government.

History’s best strategists understood that one should never fight an opponent’s war but instead dictate the terms of engagement. Canada’s future does not depend on reacting to Washington’s policies—these are calculated strategies, not whims. Instead, Canada’s success will be determined by its ability to act in the interests of citizens in all regions of the country, and seeing the world as it is rather than how ideological narratives wish it to be.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is co-author of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X