4 ms·

> record high illegal immigration levels that we're seeing today As of 2022, the undocumented population was still about 10% below its 2007 peak. [1] The popul

> record high illegal immigration levels that we're seeing today As of 2022, the undocumented population was still about 10% below its 2007 peak. [1] The population of the US grew by 11% over the same period, so as a fraction it's well below the recent maximum. Some of the statistics at the border increased massively in recent years because a lot of immigrants are now turning themselves in as refugees. [2] This allows them to "ride the disfunction" in the backlogged immigration courts, granting them legal work authorization and deportation protection in the meantime. If we fixed the disfunction, they would just stop turning themselves in once again. The level we've "agreed that we're okay with" is far from set. Every time we've tried to set it in recent years [3], restrictionists like you have spared no tactic to gum up the works. That's because you figured (correctly) that the level of legal immigration that we would compromise upon is higher than the level we currently have. Restrictionists are the primary reason we have a vast underclass of semi-serfs. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k... [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applications https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/asylum-applicatio... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo...

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
>the [legal] levels ...are far from set They are set. You appear to not like those levels, but they are well defined. Movements to change those levels are also fine, but again, legal immigration paths are well defined. >restrictionists like you We have a system by which we make these decisions as a society (i.e. the federal government). That system has not materially changed immigration recently. That isn't "gumming up the works" that's the system working as designed. >Restrictionists are the primary reason we have a vast underclass of semi-serfs. No. We have a underclass of semi-serfs because we have systematically and for decades chosen to turn a blind eye to (or actively encouraged) illegal immigration. We could enforce laws as they exist today and not have this human exploitation.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  > They are set. You appear to not like those levels, but they are well defined > We could enforce laws as they exist today You can't have it both ways, either the system is broken or it isn't. You don't want to fix it because the overall level would increase. So you push for "enforcement," but that does nothing to address e.g. the asylum claims situation. The system cannot be fixed without updating the law. The immigration system has been broken for more than a generation. There have been large majorities in favor of reforming it for almost as long. Doing nothing in this context is not how the system is supposed to work. It's actually amazing how a narrow-but-loud minority of visceral racists has managed to gum up the works for so long.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    I'm completely unbothered by the implied accusations of racism (e.g. "only racists oppose my position. You oppose my position. The remainder of the problem is left as an exercise to the reader.") and it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. >you can't have it both ways We have a system of government and that through that system we've defined legal immigration. That system is no longer being enforced, which is less of a system-problem and more of a meta-problem. I don't have any solutions to the meta-problem[1], but it is self-evident to me that even if we have immigration reform the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part (that is, if there is a meta-problem, no within-system solutions will work). [1] I hope it will work itself out in the polls but I guess we'll see
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      > it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. Funnily I'm making the same claim about you. > the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part As is, the system is only serving the interests of the restrictionist minority. The situation is similar to where marijuana enforcement was a decade ago, and LGBTQ rights a decade before that. Many states have had to make-do with the situation and ended up building their own mini-immigration systems. If this is the context in which someone is thinking "gee, but I'd really like to get millions of people deported and lock the rest out, how can I accomplish that?", well, it's just possible that perhaps they haven't come to terms with the reason why. They can call a spade a spade if and when they're ready.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

>the [legal] levels ...are far from set They are set. You appear to not like those levels, but they are well defined. Movements to change those levels are also fine, but again, legal immigration paths are well defined. >restrictionists like you We have a system by which we make these decisions as a society (i.e. the federal government). That system has not materially changed immigration recently. That isn't "gumming up the works" that's the system working as designed. >Restrictionists are the primary reason we have a vast underclass of semi-serfs. No. We have a underclass of semi-serfs because we have systematically and for decades chosen to turn a blind eye to (or actively encouraged) illegal immigration. We could enforce laws as they exist today and not have this human exploitation.

worstspotgain 2y ago
> They are set. You appear to not like those levels, but they are well defined > We could enforce laws as they exist today You can't have it both ways, either the system is broken or it isn't. You don't want to fix it because the overall level would increase. So you push for "enforcement," but that does nothing to address e.g. the asylum claims situation. The system cannot be fixed without updating the law. The immigration system has been broken for more than a generation. There have been large majorities in favor of reforming it for almost as long. Doing nothing in this context is not how the system is supposed to work. It's actually amazing how a narrow-but-loud minority of visceral racists has managed to gum up the works for so long.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  I'm completely unbothered by the implied accusations of racism (e.g. "only racists oppose my position. You oppose my position. The remainder of the problem is left as an exercise to the reader.") and it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. >you can't have it both ways We have a system of government and that through that system we've defined legal immigration. That system is no longer being enforced, which is less of a system-problem and more of a meta-problem. I don't have any solutions to the meta-problem[1], but it is self-evident to me that even if we have immigration reform the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part (that is, if there is a meta-problem, no within-system solutions will work). [1] I hope it will work itself out in the polls but I guess we'll see
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    > it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. Funnily I'm making the same claim about you. > the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part As is, the system is only serving the interests of the restrictionist minority. The situation is similar to where marijuana enforcement was a decade ago, and LGBTQ rights a decade before that. Many states have had to make-do with the situation and ended up building their own mini-immigration systems. If this is the context in which someone is thinking "gee, but I'd really like to get millions of people deported and lock the rest out, how can I accomplish that?", well, it's just possible that perhaps they haven't come to terms with the reason why. They can call a spade a spade if and when they're ready.