4 ms·

> will only result in more illegal migration in the long term Why? Wouldn't it disincentivize illegal immigration by making it much more riskier? Agreed that

> will only result in more illegal migration in the long term Why? Wouldn't it disincentivize illegal immigration by making it much more riskier? Agreed that the legal immigration system needs an overhaul, these are a lot of people living in limbo, paying taxes and not causing crimes with very few rights. The term no taxation without representation was the reason the USA got founded.

notepad0x90 1y ago
It's a temporary partisan solution, the other party will do the opposite, reducing enforcement and letting even more illegal migrants in, lest they be accused of being a xenophobe.
- Izikiel43 1y ago
  Not sure of that to be honest, I think that would be a loud minority. Once democratic cities got a taste of the flood of people coming in that were sent by southern states, they realized how big the issue is and how much of a drag on resources it is.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    That's not how it is in reality, southern states (not just them though) have been doing that with homeless people too, not just immigrants. Republicans did jim crow in the 50s and 60s, we still talk about it today, and the positive blowback from that needs no explanation. Keep in mind that ICE is doing a lot more than cops did to protesters in the 60s, and it is targeting not just one group but several minority groups. not only that, it is all being live streamed, and it is affecting a lot of majority-group americans more directly. If ICE can avoid being disbanded it would be a great victory for them. If I were exaggerating, I would be talking about tribunals and mass incarcerations of ICE agents, but I'm not.
    - Eisenstein 1y ago
      Correction: it was actually southern Democrats that did Jim Crow. The Democratic party used to be quite different before the civil rights bill.
      - notepad0x90 1y ago
        No, it was Republicans (today) who used to be democrats in that era. parties are made up of people, it was the same people or their ideological inheritors. Many republicans today in congress (especially leadership) were of voting age in that era. a 20 year old in 1969 would be 75 today, younger than the current and former president.
        Eisenstein 1y ago
        Were they Democrats at that time, or not?
        array_key_first 1y ago
        Fallacy: not relevant. Ideologically, they were republicans. In name only, they were Democrats. This is not some 'haha gotcha!' type thing. Real argument with real human brains don't work that way. You can be technically right but if it's on some semantic bullshit nobody cares about, then you're wrong.
        Eisenstein 1y ago
        It is a correction, not a gotcha. If you want to make a factual correction mean something more than it does then that is your bed to lie in, not mine.
        notepad0x90 1y ago
        Yes, they were. They are republicans now. You arguing in bad faith here, because you very well know the democrats back then are the republicans now. The party of democrats back then is not the party of the democrats now. the democratic party represented the same people republicans represent today. You're trying to make an falsely link the democratic party today with the party in the 60's, you know that link is incorrect, but since it helps you make a point, you're making it anyways. I call this: intellectual fraud.

notepad0x90 1y ago

It's a temporary partisan solution, the other party will do the opposite, reducing enforcement and letting even more illegal migrants in, lest they be accused of being a xenophobe.

Izikiel43 1y ago
Not sure of that to be honest, I think that would be a loud minority. Once democratic cities got a taste of the flood of people coming in that were sent by southern states, they realized how big the issue is and how much of a drag on resources it is.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  That's not how it is in reality, southern states (not just them though) have been doing that with homeless people too, not just immigrants. Republicans did jim crow in the 50s and 60s, we still talk about it today, and the positive blowback from that needs no explanation. Keep in mind that ICE is doing a lot more than cops did to protesters in the 60s, and it is targeting not just one group but several minority groups. not only that, it is all being live streamed, and it is affecting a lot of majority-group americans more directly. If ICE can avoid being disbanded it would be a great victory for them. If I were exaggerating, I would be talking about tribunals and mass incarcerations of ICE agents, but I'm not.
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    Correction: it was actually southern Democrats that did Jim Crow. The Democratic party used to be quite different before the civil rights bill.
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      No, it was Republicans (today) who used to be democrats in that era. parties are made up of people, it was the same people or their ideological inheritors. Many republicans today in congress (especially leadership) were of voting age in that era. a 20 year old in 1969 would be 75 today, younger than the current and former president.
      - Eisenstein 1y ago
        Were they Democrats at that time, or not?
        array_key_first 1y ago
        Fallacy: not relevant. Ideologically, they were republicans. In name only, they were Democrats. This is not some 'haha gotcha!' type thing. Real argument with real human brains don't work that way. You can be technically right but if it's on some semantic bullshit nobody cares about, then you're wrong.
        Eisenstein 1y ago
        It is a correction, not a gotcha. If you want to make a factual correction mean something more than it does then that is your bed to lie in, not mine.
        notepad0x90 1y ago
        Yes, they were. They are republicans now. You arguing in bad faith here, because you very well know the democrats back then are the republicans now. The party of democrats back then is not the party of the democrats now. the democratic party represented the same people republicans represent today. You're trying to make an falsely link the democratic party today with the party in the 60's, you know that link is incorrect, but since it helps you make a point, you're making it anyways. I call this: intellectual fraud.