This first month in Trump 2.0 has been fun. Initial surveys show even the independent normies are excited by the action as a president can just do things. There is one thing many of his voters want more of: deportations. President Trump has consistently emphasized border security and immigration enforcement as cornerstones of his administration’s agenda. It is time to get to work.
With a renewed mandate in 2025, accelerating ICE hiring and increasing the rate of deportations are pivotal to fulfilling campaign promises and turning the Titanic that is America. Achieving these goals requires overcoming bureaucratic hurdles, optimizing resources, and leveraging executive authority. One would hope the domestic policy team is eyeing several actionable strategies to expedite ICE’s workforce expansion and enhance deportation efficiency.
One of the most immediate steps Trump could take is to overhaul ICE’s hiring process, which is guaranteed to be slowed by federal red tape put up by an antagonistic bureaucracy. Lengthy background checks, complex qualification requirements, and bureaucratic delays deter potential hires and prolongs onboarding. This is an emergency. By issuing an executive order, Trump could direct the DHS to simplify these procedures, reducing the timeline from application to deployment. An example of a workaround would be fast-tracking security clearances for candidates with prior law enforcement or military experience to quickly bolster ICE’s ranks. Offering temporary waivers for non-critical requirements (specific educational thresholds) during a hiring surge could widen the applicant pool without compromising operational integrity.
To incentivize recruitment, Trump could also propose competitive signing bonuses and relocation assistance, particularly targeting regions with high illegal immigration activity, such as border states. This also needs some sizzle and pizazz. We want young Americans eager to join this force. Marketing campaigns highlighting the patriotic mission of ICE service will attract motivated men, especially in this political moment where Trump’s base is energized. It is not just about deporting illegals, but protecting your nation.
Trump’s team does need congress for assistance. Increasing ICE’s capacity relies on securing adequate funding. Trump could work with a Republican-controlled Congress or use emergency budgetary powers if necessary to boost ICE’s allocation within the DHS budget. Additional funds could support more hiring and training facilities, equipment, and detention centers critical to deportation operations. During his first term, Trump faced resistance from Democrats over funding for immigration enforcement. He likely will face this again. Maybe he can lean on some swing state congressmen. Trump still has Congress. With a unified government in 2025, he can expedite appropriations through streamlined legislative processes.
Doge comes into play here. They have found loose change in DHS. Trump can reallocate resources from less pressing federal programs to ICE could accelerate progress. If DHS funds have to stay within DHS, shift those formerly DEI dollars over to ICE. Think of everything found in USAid. Trump can try diverting funds from discretionary grants or foreign aid could provide a quick infusion of capital, signaling a clear prioritization of domestic security.
Technology offers a powerful tool to enhance deportation rates. Trump could direct ICE to modernize its data infrastructure, integrating advanced analytics to identify and prioritize deportable individuals more efficiently. By syncing ICE databases with local law enforcement records, biometric systems, and visa overstay tracking, agents could target high-priority cases—such as criminal offenders—faster. During his first term, Trump expanded the use of the Secure Communities program; doubling down on such initiatives could streamline identification and apprehension.
Drones, surveillance systems, and AI-driven predictive models could also be deployed along the border and in urban centers to monitor illegal re-entries and support ICE field operations. While these technologies require upfront investment, their long-term impact on operational efficiency could significantly increase deportation numbers.
Tech is one thing, but it comes down to bodies on the ground. Trump should revive and expand programs like 287(g), which deputizes local police to assist ICE in identifying and detaining illegal immigrants. He can deputize US Marshalls on a temporary basis as much as he wants. Let’s get the men out there, and not lean on feds who are already tipping gangs off about raids. Resistance from sanctuary cities posed challenges in his first term, but with a stronger mandate, he has already pressured non-compliant jurisdictions by withholding federal funds and if AG Bondi is to be believed investigation and charges. Offering incentives, such as grants for cooperating agencies, could also encourage participation. By effectively multiplying ICE’s reach through local partnerships, deportations could scale rapidly without requiring a proportional increase in federal hires.
Deportation bottlenecks often stem from overwhelmed immigration courts. Trump should push for an executive initiative to hire additional immigration judges and support staff, reducing case backlogs that delay removals. Don’t let the NGO lawyers gunk up the process. During his first term, he increased judge hires, but further expansion coupled with tighter timelines for case adjudication will accelerate outcomes. His team has to play hardball with the procedure manipulators. If they limit appeals for certain categories of deportees (e.g., those with criminal convictions as low as DUIs) through regulatory changes, this will shorten the legal process, freeing ICE to focus on enforcement rather than prolonged litigation.
Miller and Homan will be doing tough work, but Trump needs to have a great, consistent message. Trump is the world’s greatest salesman. He has an uncanny ability to shape public narrative to galvanize support for these efforts. By framing ICE hiring and deportations as urgent national security imperatives, he will rally the nation and pressure lawmakers to act swiftly. High-profile speeches, social media campaigns, and visits to border facilities can maintain momentum, while also countering opposition narratives from progressive groups. Defunding NGOs helps as money for protestors will be lacking. Trump also has to make the left decide to explicitly support criminals. That is not hard, but he needs to maintain the pressure.
This all requires a multifaceted approach. As the main piece of his platform, this has to be the focus. Deportations beget self-deportations. We want that positive feedback loop. The admin has to get serious about streamlining recruitment, securing funding, embracing technology, using local cops, reforming judicial processes, and using the number one salesman in the world. Trump’s executive authority and congressional backing in 2025 provide a strong foundation. The devil is in the details, and the administration has to nail the details. By prioritizing these immigration tactics, he can deliver on his immigration enforcement promises, reshaping the landscape of U.S. border security and the political landscape for decades to come.
Sam likes digital surveillance. Me? Not.
The college leftist-to-attorney pipeline must be cut off. I don't know how.
"The American Bar Association helps reinforce and expand the Left’s power chiefly through its influence in accrediting law schools. The ABA’s involvement in the accreditation process initially focused on the issue of greatest concern to lawyers: making sure that they were paid comparably with doctors! Thus, the ABA imposed on law schools limits on how many hours law professors could teach. Two decades ago, the Justice Department upended this cozy arrangement, seeing it as facilitating a cartel that drove up prices for students. As part of a consent decree, the ABA agreed not to impose requirements that affected salaries and certain other economic matters. The result also shifted proposals for accreditation to the Council on Legal Education. But the council’s independence from the ABA is attenuated. Its head is approved by the ABA president, and most of its members are ABA lawyers, with a strong representation of professors. The ABA can still reject the accreditation standards. The consent decree has not prevented ABA influence, in other words, but merely redirected it.
Now that the lawyers’ guild cannot openly mandate policies to advance its members’ immediate economic interests, it has switched to imposing requirements that reflect the predominant ideology of the profession. Just this year, the council has strengthened its requirements for race- and ethnic-based hiring of faculty, making clear that law schools may henceforth be compelled to take such considerations into account, unless they are in jurisdictions that explicitly forbid such hiring. The requirement offers fresh confirmation of how far the organized bar will go in using its influence for a progressive-favored cause. Even under current precedent that the Supreme Court will reconsider next year, the requirement would be illegal: the Court has approved racial preferences for student admissions but not for faculty hiring. And regardless of the standard’s legality, it is a striking abuse of political power for an accreditor to mandate a policy nationwide that voters have rejected in almost every statewide referendum on racial and gender preferences."
https://www.city-journal.org/article/lawyers-for-radical-change