Dems have a low approval rating because they aren't President. They're in Congress, and all of Congress has a low approval rating. Perhaps worth noting: it is higher as of late (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx), which correlates to AOC and Sanders touring against Trump's policies. We'll see if that trend continues. Bad news for Trump if it does.
(Actually, the question is kind of leading; it's worth noting that overall, approval of the whole party, Dem and GOP, is mostly disapprove and only differs by four points or so. America isn't satisfied, as a country, with either party).
Fentanyl is unrelated to immigration. Most fentanyl comes from China, so I don't know why immigration (which is mostly from countries south of the US) is being mentioned. Gangs are only tangentially related to immigration; most US gangs are home-grown. I don't approve of gang violence; I just don't think stymying immigration decreases gang violence. If anything, it gives gangs another powerful card to play: their capacity to move people over the border illegally is only of value if it's hard for people to move over the border. Counterintuitively, you can probably break the back of a lot of gang authority by just handing out day-passes like water at the Southern border.
You are, of course, completely disregarding the third option between "deport with the children" and "deport without the children," which is "don't deport at all." But that doesn't satisfy the need to make America ours again, does it?
I believe we both have our answer. You believe these measures are helping, and are willing to sacrifice the welfare of a few children to see them through. I am not in the same position.
If you'd like to share, I'd be interested in the media you are reading that suggests that fentanyl, sex trafficking, and gang activity will be improved improved or ameliorated by mass deportations. You're right that I haven't seen that in the media I consume, and I'm curious where the meme comes from. Do we have evidence or is it more an instance of we must do something, this is a thing, therefore let's do it?
> purely just a numbers thing
When we start reducing human beings to "a numbers thing," we are going down a very dark path.
I don't find your explanation for the Dems low approval rating very convincing.
After 4 years of Joe Biden, the American people voted in the most disruptive, change agent in US political history, the polar opposite of Joe Biden.
So fairly obviously people are not happy with the Dems.
Fentanyl is obviously related to the Democrat open border policy. Gangs establishing territory in the US is obviously related to the Democrat open border policy.
You can tie yourself in knots with whatever tortuous logic you choose to justify the unjustifiable but most people (like me) are on the side of commonsense. Close the borders and manage immigration in an orderly, controlled way.
With regard to deporting the family of illegal immigrants, the people responsible for this situation is the Democrats who opened the borders and the family that chose to break the law by immigrating illegally.
Re: the "purely numbers thing". You haven't understood the point I was making. With any govt action at scale (Dems or Republican) there will always be winners and losers.
Depending on your bias (and we can obviously see your bias) you'll focus on whatever outlier situation you find to justify your political framing.
And there are so many "very dark paths" aren't there?
Some people might consider weaponising the justice system in an attempt to take out a political opponent a very dark path".
Or others might consider constructing a fake dossier alleging political collusion with Russia, and then using that fake dossier to weaponise the FBI against a political opponent, a "very dark path".
Others might consider opening the borders to illegal migration at scale to sway the voter demographics in your favour (a complete corruption of democracy), a "very dark path".
Not to mention the sex trafficking at scale, the importation of fentanyl at scale as a result of the open border policy could also be a "very dark path".
Others might consider hiding the diminished mental state of a president (in collusion with the media) and gaslighting the public on this issue, so that a cabal of unelected bureacrats can run the country from behind closed doors, a "very dark path".
Others might consider placing enormous pressure on social media companies to censor public discourse thereby bypassing the first amendment a "very dark path".
So please spare me your highly, highly selective, performative faux "concern". I simply can't take you seriously.
The feeling is mutual because much of what you have said applies to the current President as well.
For a country that was, ostensibly, as you claim, tired of the government being weaponized for political ends, the President's mental decline being hidden by his lickspittles, and fentanyl and illegal immigration, they sure picked a winner, didn't they? A 78-year-old with obvious deteriorating health who already had the job and failed at it. And it's on the court record that the GOP planned to use the census to manipulate demographics for representation purposes (because their leadership knows the actual population, undocumented immigration or no, is trending away from people who will vote for them over time; most of the power they hold now is from gerrymandering of representation regions), so your protestations and conspiracy theory around illegal immigration being a political ploy ring extremely hollow.
I think America is getting the government it has chosen and appears to be reaping the consequences. So if you support these decisions, I can't really take you seriously either.
Americans wanted someone to fix their drug and border problems and what they got is a guy who will take a free jet with him when he leaves the job.
All hail American democracy, right?