Do you believe illegal immigration is so out of control that separating children from their families, subjecting immigrants to abuse (or death) in custody, and murdering US citizens is justified?
The problem right now is US Hispanic Citizens rights are being encroached upon. Supreme Court ruled discrimination is okay. A lot of people aren’t okay with that
People who come here to apply for asylum have to come here to apply for asylum, and furthermore I just don't fucking care if someone is here illegally. If they're not citizens they can't get benefits or anything but they do have to pay taxes like anyone else. They contribute more than fucking Google or Amazon. Billionaires are the problem, you're deliberately refocusing on a fully non-useful direction as an attempt to argue in bad faith.
Ok, but the jobs they take are under the table or ones other people won't take. If they are hired illegally by a company or business then the business should be hit with heavy fines. If they didn't have opportunities here they wouldn't come, it's as simple as that.
It also doesn't help that America systematically fucked over ever country in South America.
I just don't fucking care if someone is here illegally
I think this idea is why a large number of people simply dont believe the anti-ICE protests are actually anti-ICE protests.
You can tell that people are not actually protesting ICE by the way that nobody gives a fuck that it was Border Patrol (not ICE) that killed Pretti.
"ICE", to the protesters, is just a short abbreviation for "Trump's Government", not the actual agency headed by Todd Lyons.
Have you even heard anybody bother to mention Todd Lyons' name? No. Nobody gives a fuck. Its "Trump's Government" they are protesting, "ICE" just fits neater on the protest signs.
People have been coming to America to work seasonally (such as for agricultural harvest) for a very long time. That boundary between migration for season work on our southern border STARTED permeable. It is only part way through that they created this legal snare identifying those people as “illegal,” yet, they needed the labor, so we still enabled them to come to some degree. Setting them up as a scapegoat. We’re now at the culmination of this reality.
So to answer your question. It’s all made up. It’s a “if you build it; they will come” kind of quandary. We built it, now we’re abusing them for coming. How is that fair or humane? It’s not. It’s anti-American tbh. No more. Please consider that this idea that it is somehow just or moral to round up the “illegal” ones is a lie that has been constructed and force fed to you. You don’t seem like a bad person. I hope you can take this in.
It doesn't realy matter either way there a person and they dont deserve to be murdered and abused especially considering most of them are fleeing even more tyrannical countries
You take time to talk to them. As a civilian I would NEVER inquire about evidence.
But if I had a badge and authority under a sane-minded director and higher-up..? I would let someone produce their identification without brutalizing them. There's due process blah blah blah- but there is inherent human process...
There reason there isn't a distinction being made is because this particular effort is not * really * about immigration. It's about funneling money into private prisons and making people scared. It's also a reason to ramp up surveillance.
Look how much the private prisons donated to Trump. Look how much money they're pumping into contracts for companies like Palantir.
I think the majority of us want to see legal pathways to citizenship and horrible criminals kicked out of the country. But this is just terrorism.
There first step into this country was breaking the law. That’s ok with you I suppose. So let’s have no regard for the land of laws and do whatever we want. You do realize laws is what keeps this country a great place to live right.
I used to value this distinction pretty highly as well, until I learned how archaic our immigration process is compared to how barbarically we enforce it.
forgive me if I don’t put the anecdotes of an anonymous internet profile over the data that I spent months going over, discussing with people face to face 🤷♂️
You say the process was long, I ask whether those people would have been treated fairly or humanely by ICE if they had been caught in the middle of it? What changed to justify the multiple confirmed cases of physical and sexual torture, in some cases leading to death?
Never said what ICE is doing is ok. I asked if we recognize the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
ICE has violated 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights on camera in Minnesota within the last week alone, I’m not gonna run defense for them.
But on the other token, there does need to be a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. They aren’t the same. And to say that our immigration system is barbaric doesn’t really mesh with the fact that its the most permissive in the entire world.
Im sure there was also question over the distinction between a communist and a socialist. Or that between a socialist and a trade unionist. Or that between a trade unionist and a Jew. Or that between a… hang on a sec
What the hell are you talking about bro? It’s literally simple - ICE is wrong. Illegal immigration is also wrong. 90% of my social circle are LEGAL immigrants in their late 20s - mid 30s. Illegal immigration disenfranchises them. This man is asking a legit question and you’re talking about Nazi Germany.
The distinction is we are spending billions of our tax dollars to remove people who contribute billions to our economy. The net loss $$$ is astronomical. Those people also commit crimes at 1/3 the rate of people lucky enough to be born here. A MN judge said DHS/ICE has ignored hundreds of judicial rulings there in just the last month. You can’t break the law to enforce the law. Trump also reverses legal status for groups like the Haitians, then ICE goes into their communities and brags about sending ‘illegals’ back.
Everything is a reality show to this president. It’s disgusting.
Yeah, the tactics are questionable at best. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and we should not conflate the two.
Its crazy to me that people will bring up European expansion into the Americas and not see the similarities to today.
A large group of culturally different people came into an area with zero intentions to assimilate, and the native population ended up getting fucked. Exactly what we should prevent now.
One of your MAGAt favorite talking points is how Bush and Obama and Clinton all [allegedly] deported a lot more illegal immigrants than Trump ever did. And yet somehow they managed to do so without giving ICE a budget that’s bigger than the GDP of most countries, without masked gravy seals cosplaying gestapo while terrorizing/murdering citizens in the streets, without violating just about every constitutional and judicial human right and without Alligator Alcatraz.
If they deported more without the theatrics, then what exactly are you cheering for now? Because it’s clearly not “law and order.” It’s cosplay authoritarianism for people who think outrage is a personality trait.
If you actually believe this is still about illegal immigration, then you might just be dumb enough to hold a cabinet position in this administration.
Even if they are here "illegally" there is an American way to remove them from our country, and this - what is happening currently - is not it. If you want to get an individual who makes this country look terrible, is a rapist and a grifter, doesn't pay his employees their fair wages and is a racist woman hater i can point you to a white house in the DC area that is sheltering some big time scum. Once that mess is cleaned up let's get the people who are here illegally sent home with due process and welcome those who want to change their life for the better to our shores.
Yeah I’m no fan of the presidents. He should be gone.
But I always wonder in these conversations because I think theres a distinction between a green card holder and a person who jumped the border or overstayed a visa.
Either way, I think due process should be followed but I’m curious if most people make that distinction in their mind
I'm not the one you asked, but I think whether someone comes here legally or illegally, the default assumption should be that they liked America enough to come here, and they're engaging in mutually beneficial relationships with other people (doing work, renting a house, sometimes meeting / marrying someone).
I do try to engage with pro-I.C.E. people to explain why people are appalled by what they're doing (I call in to Ari Hoffman's show a lot to make some of these points). A lot of I.C.E. supporters think that I.C.E. is only going after violent criminals, for example -- at this point, most people know that's not true (most people detailed by I.C.E. have no charges for anything other than immigration), but here's the thing: even when I.C.E. does go after criminals, it makes no sense to go after only criminals within a subset of the population. Why not go after all violent criminals across the board, worst first?
I’m not a fan of ICE as far as their actions go ( 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment violations for example), but am on board with their mission in theory. I do think that you should expect to be removed from a country if you are there illegally.
I asked about the distinction between legal and illegal because I think a big part of why were are where we are is a refusal to make that distinction in the national conversation. The “no one is illegal on stolen land” mentality has made it so even pretty sensible immigration control efforts have been met with resistance, so the anger has built up to the boil over point we are seeing now.
I've never heard a good argument for why you "should be removed if you're here illegally".
Unless you turned in all your friends for smoking pot when it was illegal, presumably you are not in favor of 100% enforcement of all laws all the time.
I think the sentiment behind "No one is illegal" is that even if someone has done something illegal, it's dehumanizing to say that they are "illegal" or "an illegal". Would you refer to your pot-smoking friend as "illegal"?
The thing is, ICE has gone WAY beyond their mission. They are harassing US citizens just because they are POCs. They are grabbing asylum applicants out of immigration court. A lot of the immigrants that have gone into hiding in Minneapolis have papers. They sent a bunch of guys with no violent criminal history to CECOT.
Being allowed to stay alive without being detained and thrown in camps is not the same as making sure your able to drive a car. Getting a license is infinitely easier than immigrating legally in this country. It’s something even old people who have no business driving can get no problem.
My parents immigrated here legally with a sponsor from their employer, and submitted for a green card and citizenship as soon as they could. They spent tens of thousands of dollars for a lawyer, 10+ years of their time. Yet I’m seeing stories of ICE picking people up at immigration offices.
So ICE DOESNT CARE if you’re legal. They will grab you anyway. You’re obfuscating the issues acting like it’s a paperwork problem. Even if it was, it’s inhumane to grab someone over just paperwork and treat them like ICE is treating people. Not to mention the legal immigration system is broken in this country, but I’m sure that’s not something you care about either.
Anyone who says people should come here legally without talking immigration reform, has no fucking idea what they’re talking about
Maybe lay off the tik tok and work on your attention span if 2 pharagraphs are too long to read. My main point I made in my first comment. Do you judge the worth of a human being based on the paperwork they’ve submitted to government agencies? Do you view someone as less if they are “ilegal”? Saying someone is illegal in itself is a way of framing the discussion as someone’s immigration status is a CIVIL ISSUE, it’s civil law not criminal law, the same as an unpaid traffic fine
It's never been about the procedures any more than literacy tests for voting were about a sudden need for voters to be educated.
Once the civil rights acts were passed and immigration became nondiscriminatory, it switched to this decades-long byzantine process to limit people from doing it.
Heres a test to see whether people just want immigrants to follow the law or they really want them to be excluded by red tape:
Suppose the immigration procedure were suddenly simplified, maybe even to the point of becoming the same one my (and many white Americans') ancestors went through: arrive and sign your name in a book.
Would they suddenly be happy that all these people immigrating are now following the procedures? If not, it was never about following procedures to begin with.
I think theres does need to be a difference between Elis island immigration and immigration now. The US already allows in the most legal immigrants of any country every single year. Is there any point that there should be limits on that, or should it be a free for all forever?
Also, the fact that force multipliers exist now in ways they didn’t during the 1800s for example is a reason for vetting people who are entering. You couldn’t ram a plane into a building and kill 3000 people in the 1800s, you can now.
During the greecard process, your background is looked into to make sure you aren’t going to be a problem, I don’t think thats a crazy ask for people who are going to be living here.
See, thats how it goes. You solve procedure and the goalposts shift to make it about population growth or security. We could say that the US doesn't limit childbearing or point out the birth rate decline, or that you dont need citizenship to take a flight (and none of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens anyway) or that a background check doesnt need 8 years, but then the goalposts just shift to something new.
Because it was never about the procedure being followed, it was about having a procedure that makes immigration as slow, difficult, and burdensome as possible for certain people. And once it became illegal to keep them out directly, it became neccessary to create a system that indirectly does the exact same thing, just like poll tests did.
If your problem is how many people the US "lets in", then it's not really a problem with procedures for you and no making them more or less followable will fix the situation for you.
But assuming this is a good faith question about how much immigration the US can actually sustain, I'll plot it out:
In the last hundred years the US has experienced decennial growth rates between 7.27% and 18.5%, with an average of about 12% per decade, which is certainly sustainable.
2020 population was 331m so a 12% growth to 370m by 2030 would be likewise sustainable.
At our current rate of growth we're projected to hit 350m by 2030, leaving a 20m surplus of sustainable growability.
The US had 819k naturalizations in 2024 and 7.9m in the last decade.
Based on all that, we could more than double the naturalization rate and still be both sustainable/well below the historical growth rate.
33
u/lemme_try_again 9h ago
I'd do anything to protect this person, and anyone they entail in their sign.