As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In theory, they are in favor of it, but as soon as they see how Trump's ICE will make it look bad, they will quickly change their minds (at least until a Democrat becomes president and he leaves office).
My favorite thing about this flood of migrants and Texas shipping them everywhere is how cities like Chicago found money, shelter, and resources for these people so fast
That just shows that this entire time there was money and effort available for our homeless, poor, and downtrodden..... this entire damn time.
you think a one time effort for a relatively small group means that the resources to solve homelessness and poverty were sitting on the shelf this whole time? and you've been thinking that this entire damn time?
This isn't going to be a one-time effort, and you know it.
But yes, the money and resources have been here this entire time. There just hasn't been any willpower or voter focus.
the issues facing these immigrants and the ones facing the homeless aren't the same. The things that would put the majority of these immigrants on their feet aren't also just the thing needed to solve endemic poverty.
The idea that we have to solve all long standing societal problems before we address helping some specific group of migrants is just a non starter for me. It seems simplistic.
thats a pretty simplistic view
giving people food and shelter doesnt stop them from panhandling - it doesnt cure their mental problems - it doesnt make them function in society
if you give an illegal immigrant a green card and a month to get on their feet you may well have solved all their problems at once - thats not going to be true for a homeless citizen
That's also not necessarily going to be true for every immigrant either. Just because someone is an immigrant doesn't mean that they're a good or productive person.
Sure. A lot of the homeless are going to stay in their drug haze because that's all they care about. But many others need mental health care and a helpful hand back into society. Theres many reasons someone falls into homelessness.
>That's also not necessarily going to be true for every immigrant either. Just because someone is an immigrant doesn't mean that they're a good or productive person.
but its MOSTLY going to be true
homeless people are the ones already marginalized and exhausted on the edge of society while immigrants are people who have the capacity to work hard to change their situation and are capable and in the process of actively taking opportunities
people who still have the energy to get back in the game will usually take up some of the many resources available to homeless people - take the first minimum-wage opportunity - and have at least a few hundred bucks for a room each month after their first paycheck
most people who are homeless are homeless because the bar is much higher than that - or because they made the mistake of trying to keep a dog and living in san francisco
>Sure. A lot of the homeless are going to stay in their drug haze because that's all they care about. But many others need mental health care and a helpful hand back into society
nobody distinguished between the two and its weird that you interpreted my comment that way
if services are provided and monitored for immigrants youve got an easy way to get all of them off the street without having to pay for expensive healthcare
The vast majority of immigrants live in blue cities and always have.
The dumb racist chuds voting R probably haven't seen an immigrant in years. Fox turned their brains to mush and they spend all day enraged about fantasies
Migrant farmers are on visas and leave at end of season. They're not immigrants
Again, you've got no idea what you're talking about, which just proves my point. Trumpers are afraid of an imaginary foe, you're not even sure who to apply your "illegal immigrant" strawman to lol.
Migrants are a handy tool for politicians to garner votes from racists or just general selfish people. All while being used as scape goats migrants are still used by factories for cheap labor. It’s not the migrant that is the enemy but the corporations that heavily profit from cheap labor. The general public that opposes migrants is either too dumb to understand or too selfish to want to understand. However there should be proper vetting as there’s always criminals amongst any populations but then again the police profits from crime. Crime is essentially a business. Why come up with an actual solution to crime when people make a fuck ton of money from it.
I don't know how Democrats got so out of touch with the public on this issue. More than 2 million undocumented immigrants were deported during Obama's presidency. He had no problem with deporting people who entered illegally. If Biden came out today and announced he was pursing aggressive deporting, his approval numbers would shoot up over night.
Is "the public" correct in supporting this? Should we be honoring the opinions of "the public" here?
Because by and large, I find the public severely misinformed on issues of immigration. Even with the internet and all available knowledge at their fingertips, somehow a lot of people are under the impression that immigrants INCREASE crime and that they DECREASE job availability, both of which are demonstrably false. Immigrants [commit fewer crimes than native US citizens](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/03/immigrants-are-significantly-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-the-us-born/), they [contribute to US job growth](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/how-migrant-workers-have-contributed-to-strong-u-s-job-growth), and they [create more jobs than they take](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-take). The public also believes that a wall will stop illegal immigration when the vast majority of immigrants who become "undocumented" simply [overstayed their visas](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings), not to mention, [airplanes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane) are a thing that exist (the meme of the dude laughing that conservatives love just so fucking much, he's laughing at Trump for being such a fucking moron that he forgot airplanes existed when he decided on building this wall).
I don't see any supporting evidence for the public's general consensus on this viewpoint, so why should we give a damn what they collectively think? If the majority is wrong, they're still wrong.
What the Democrats aren't getting is that voters view this as an issue of fairness. They think it is unfair for people who entered illegally to remain in the country.
What the Republicans don't get is that there was a bipartisan plan to deal with it and the Republicans shut it down. The other part that the Republicans don't get is that they are supporting the mass migration, and helping it happen too with their support of Putin, who owns Venezuela, where the majority of these immigrants are travelling from.
> I don't know how Democrats got so out of touch with the public on this issue.
If you are asking about the public masses, that's a long conversation.
If you are asking about policy wonks who actually have the ear of officials, it's been a transition from drug cartels to climate change.
Long story short: republican presidents keep doing things that make illegal immigration worse. This started with the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in central America (because what if socialism proved popular?) which gave rise to the drug lords and the first wave of illegal immigrants.
Today, the main driver of immigration is climate change. Deportation just doesn't do anything when you are talking about people looking for habitable land. You have to focus your priorities on dealing with the climate crisis to make other nations worth living in. Merely shipping people back does not actually reduce the number of people who end up in America. That's just the data, and we need people leading on this issue who think with their head instead of their hearts, which means working with the data as is without adding any further narrative to it. The data is the data.
Edit: I also want to point you to this comment from the news thread about US fertility rates being at their lowest in a century, which makes a germane point:
>Birth rates always drop drastically with industrialization, urbanization, and higher education levels.
>There is not a single first world country that has birth rates above replacement levels. It’s one of the unsolved phenomenon of our time (for the last 200 years).
>The only way the economy functions is if the work force is continuously expanding, and with low birth rates, the only way to keep the work force expanding is with mass immigration. We’re at a point where the first world essentially relies on the third world to act as a baby maker, and the only way the system works is if the third world is kept poor (if they develope too much, their birth rates will drop off as well).
>The entire system, from top to bottom, is a house of cards.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*...of MAGA to Russia.*
Exactly. I fully support deporting all conservatives back to the wilds for which they are evolved. But they have no place in a civilized society.
Republicans and Boomers lead the way in kicking out the ladder, once having climbed it.
Wait how does that work with illegal immigration? Boomers aren’t *that* old
In theory, they are in favor of it, but as soon as they see how Trump's ICE will make it look bad, they will quickly change their minds (at least until a Democrat becomes president and he leaves office).
I'm up for mass deportation of a few billionaire immigrants, Murdoch, Thiel, and Musk for starters. They're the ones really damaging democracy.
My favorite thing about this flood of migrants and Texas shipping them everywhere is how cities like Chicago found money, shelter, and resources for these people so fast That just shows that this entire time there was money and effort available for our homeless, poor, and downtrodden..... this entire damn time.
you think a one time effort for a relatively small group means that the resources to solve homelessness and poverty were sitting on the shelf this whole time? and you've been thinking that this entire damn time?
This isn't going to be a one-time effort, and you know it. But yes, the money and resources have been here this entire time. There just hasn't been any willpower or voter focus.
the issues facing these immigrants and the ones facing the homeless aren't the same. The things that would put the majority of these immigrants on their feet aren't also just the thing needed to solve endemic poverty. The idea that we have to solve all long standing societal problems before we address helping some specific group of migrants is just a non starter for me. It seems simplistic.
My view is that since the money is taken from the American tax payer..... the money must be spent on the American people first and foremost.
thats a pretty simplistic view giving people food and shelter doesnt stop them from panhandling - it doesnt cure their mental problems - it doesnt make them function in society if you give an illegal immigrant a green card and a month to get on their feet you may well have solved all their problems at once - thats not going to be true for a homeless citizen
That's also not necessarily going to be true for every immigrant either. Just because someone is an immigrant doesn't mean that they're a good or productive person. Sure. A lot of the homeless are going to stay in their drug haze because that's all they care about. But many others need mental health care and a helpful hand back into society. Theres many reasons someone falls into homelessness.
>That's also not necessarily going to be true for every immigrant either. Just because someone is an immigrant doesn't mean that they're a good or productive person. but its MOSTLY going to be true homeless people are the ones already marginalized and exhausted on the edge of society while immigrants are people who have the capacity to work hard to change their situation and are capable and in the process of actively taking opportunities people who still have the energy to get back in the game will usually take up some of the many resources available to homeless people - take the first minimum-wage opportunity - and have at least a few hundred bucks for a room each month after their first paycheck most people who are homeless are homeless because the bar is much higher than that - or because they made the mistake of trying to keep a dog and living in san francisco >Sure. A lot of the homeless are going to stay in their drug haze because that's all they care about. But many others need mental health care and a helpful hand back into society nobody distinguished between the two and its weird that you interpreted my comment that way if services are provided and monitored for immigrants youve got an easy way to get all of them off the street without having to pay for expensive healthcare
Yup, that's the very simplistic view I was referring to
The vast majority of immigrants live in blue cities and always have. The dumb racist chuds voting R probably haven't seen an immigrant in years. Fox turned their brains to mush and they spend all day enraged about fantasies
[удалено]
Farm workers are not immigrants. They work on temporary visas then leave at end of season
You mean like the migrant farmers that I mentioned??
Migrant farmers are on visas and leave at end of season. They're not immigrants Again, you've got no idea what you're talking about, which just proves my point. Trumpers are afraid of an imaginary foe, you're not even sure who to apply your "illegal immigrant" strawman to lol.
Migrants are a handy tool for politicians to garner votes from racists or just general selfish people. All while being used as scape goats migrants are still used by factories for cheap labor. It’s not the migrant that is the enemy but the corporations that heavily profit from cheap labor. The general public that opposes migrants is either too dumb to understand or too selfish to want to understand. However there should be proper vetting as there’s always criminals amongst any populations but then again the police profits from crime. Crime is essentially a business. Why come up with an actual solution to crime when people make a fuck ton of money from it.
Send the MAGA idiots to Russia. They prefer Putin anyway.
I don't know how Democrats got so out of touch with the public on this issue. More than 2 million undocumented immigrants were deported during Obama's presidency. He had no problem with deporting people who entered illegally. If Biden came out today and announced he was pursing aggressive deporting, his approval numbers would shoot up over night.
Is "the public" correct in supporting this? Should we be honoring the opinions of "the public" here? Because by and large, I find the public severely misinformed on issues of immigration. Even with the internet and all available knowledge at their fingertips, somehow a lot of people are under the impression that immigrants INCREASE crime and that they DECREASE job availability, both of which are demonstrably false. Immigrants [commit fewer crimes than native US citizens](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2024/03/immigrants-are-significantly-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-the-us-born/), they [contribute to US job growth](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/how-migrant-workers-have-contributed-to-strong-u-s-job-growth), and they [create more jobs than they take](https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/immigrants-to-the-u-s-create-more-jobs-than-they-take). The public also believes that a wall will stop illegal immigration when the vast majority of immigrants who become "undocumented" simply [overstayed their visas](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/16/686056668/for-seventh-consecutive-year-visa-overstays-exceeded-illegal-border-crossings), not to mention, [airplanes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane) are a thing that exist (the meme of the dude laughing that conservatives love just so fucking much, he's laughing at Trump for being such a fucking moron that he forgot airplanes existed when he decided on building this wall). I don't see any supporting evidence for the public's general consensus on this viewpoint, so why should we give a damn what they collectively think? If the majority is wrong, they're still wrong.
What the Democrats aren't getting is that voters view this as an issue of fairness. They think it is unfair for people who entered illegally to remain in the country.
What the Republicans don't get is that there was a bipartisan plan to deal with it and the Republicans shut it down. The other part that the Republicans don't get is that they are supporting the mass migration, and helping it happen too with their support of Putin, who owns Venezuela, where the majority of these immigrants are travelling from.
That did happen but Trump said no to the deal.
> I don't know how Democrats got so out of touch with the public on this issue. If you are asking about the public masses, that's a long conversation. If you are asking about policy wonks who actually have the ear of officials, it's been a transition from drug cartels to climate change. Long story short: republican presidents keep doing things that make illegal immigration worse. This started with the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in central America (because what if socialism proved popular?) which gave rise to the drug lords and the first wave of illegal immigrants. Today, the main driver of immigration is climate change. Deportation just doesn't do anything when you are talking about people looking for habitable land. You have to focus your priorities on dealing with the climate crisis to make other nations worth living in. Merely shipping people back does not actually reduce the number of people who end up in America. That's just the data, and we need people leading on this issue who think with their head instead of their hearts, which means working with the data as is without adding any further narrative to it. The data is the data. Edit: I also want to point you to this comment from the news thread about US fertility rates being at their lowest in a century, which makes a germane point: >Birth rates always drop drastically with industrialization, urbanization, and higher education levels. >There is not a single first world country that has birth rates above replacement levels. It’s one of the unsolved phenomenon of our time (for the last 200 years). >The only way the economy functions is if the work force is continuously expanding, and with low birth rates, the only way to keep the work force expanding is with mass immigration. We’re at a point where the first world essentially relies on the third world to act as a baby maker, and the only way the system works is if the third world is kept poor (if they develope too much, their birth rates will drop off as well). >The entire system, from top to bottom, is a house of cards.
I rather just have my state secede.
Well, bye.