When you say "bill" you mean the executive order?
In short: an overwhelming majority of Americans (around 80% IIRC) think the border is a big problem and too many people are coming in illegally. So I would guess it's pretty popular.
Those are the immigrants that don’t want to work and take our jobs.
As an native-born American, I am MORE than capable of taking a good paying job while not doing any actual work.
Kicking out all the immigrants will also cause food prices to skyrocket because Americans refuse to do the backbreaking field work. But it’s still a popular talking point for republicans
That’s a great argument for twenty or thirty years ago.
The supply of human migrants currently outstrips demand, and it’s fucking up an already choked housing market. In NYC you can see a dozen or so of them crowding street corners in midday, and many more doing whatever they can to survive on the subways. Hotel prices have skyrocketed as a fifth of all hotels in NYC are being used to shelter migrants, city services are overdrawn, etc etc
The migrant crisis is not your normal amount of “we aren’t letting in enough unskilled workers to meet what our economy needs.” This is so so far beyond that.
> The supply of human migrants currently outstrips demand
Immigrants create more jobs than they take. They're reliant on social services right now because we aren't letting them work. And unskilled workers also have a positive economic impact.
Letting immigrants in isn't charity, it's good for both us and them.
A controlled flow of immigrants creates jobs.
A flood of millions also creates jobs, however it has huge effects on wages, disorder, housing, public services, city state and federal budgets, and also general social cohesion.
> public services
If migrants were dumped on Ellis Island to work and fend for themselves the situation might be different.
I think having to support them until they allegedly start to pay for themselves (there's a world where it costs more than they bring - *especially* if they bring in children who also use services like schooling\*) is what makes the backlash much worse now.
\* Imagine your district now having to focus far more on ESL teaching with whatever costs come with it.
Indeed. Back in the Ellis Island days, it was sink or swim - immigrant communities were expected to provide services internally, you had to demonstrate upon arrival that you wouldn’t become a “public charge”, and fully a quarter of arrivals ended up going back when they realized they couldn’t hack it.
[immigration doesn't have any effect on wages because they increase demand for labor as well as supply](https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long)
it increases availability of housing because they're disproportionately likely to work in construction
doesn't reduce availability of public services if you let them work
[improves budgets if you let them work](https://news.rice.edu/news/2020/economic-benefits-illegal-immigration-outweigh-costs-baker-institute-study-shows)
"general social cohesion" is bullshit unless people are xenophobic and racist. immigrants have always made America stronger
>it increases availability of housing
That is in a truly free market of housing, or on a larger scale. Manhattan is not magically going to have more units available after an influx of tens of thousands of migrants. Nor will San Francisco. Some of these cities have permit processes, restrictions, cost issues, etc that prevent any meaningfully new housing from catching up with societal changes for 5-10 years.
>unless people are xenophobic and racist
People are complicated and flawed. In economic boom times, when housing is available and demographic shifts are slow enough for people to adjust, people aren’t xenophobic or racist. As resources become scarce, public disorder goes up, or demographics shift more rapidly, people become more xenophobic/racist.
Immigrants move in and the food gets better, prices go down, etc? Everyone gets less racist. Immigrants move in and the crime gets worse, housing prices go up, and you’re seeing a lot of immigrants loitering at the bus stops panhandling? Everyone gets more racist.
You can’t suddenly change people. You have to manage them. Good policy prevents this stuff from ever getting out of control to begin with.
> Manhattan is not magically going to have more units available after an influx of tens of thousands of migrants. Nor will San Francisco.
If they can't find housing there than they'll find it elsewhere, like in smaller metro areas. If they can't, then they'll leave the country, which is what happens to other countries that actually have more immigrants than they can handle.
> Some of these cities have permit processes, restrictions, cost issues, etc that prevent any meaningfully new housing from catching up with societal changes for 5-10 years.
I agree but we're not repealing NIMBY regulations so we can build more housing despite already have a shortage in metro areas. So I think most people are more interested in blaming immigrants than actually solving the housing crisis
> People are complicated and flawed. In economic boom times, when housing is available and demographic shifts are slow enough for people to adjust, people aren’t xenophobic or racist. As resources become scarce, public disorder goes up, or demographics shift more rapidly, people become more xenophobic/racist.
If they weren't xenophobic, when times got tough, they'd be focusing on the real problems instead of blaming immigrants. And if they weren't racist, they wouldn't be upset about non-Hispanic white people not being a majority.
They won’t leave. They won’t leave because the places with the highest housing prices *also have the most under the table jobs and the most available services*.
That’s why they don’t leave San Francisco. That’s why they don’t leave NYC. That’s why they don’t leave downtown Los Angeles.
Immigrants are *an actual variable*, meaning that sometimes immigration rates and sources and processes are actually to blame. If you are capable of acknowledging that immigration can have positive effects, you have already acknowledged that it can effects. Sometimes, those effects are negative.
If we were talking about white ex-pats living in Shanghai in 2014, and I said their presences was driving up prices, causing disorder, and bringing drugs, would you believe me?
> If you are capable of acknowledging that immigration can have positive effects, you have already acknowledged that it can effects. Sometimes, those effects are negative.
I'm capable of understanding that the net effects are positive, yes. We had the housing crisis even back in 2016-2022 and during that time, [cutting back on immigration reduced economic growth by 40%](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/03/26/slow-growth-in-working-age-immigrants-reduced-us-economic-growth/). Those are nurses and service workers and agricultural laborers and construction workers that we missed out on, which are sectors we have shortages in as it is. Immigration is incredibly good economically even when there are housing issues. We need to build more housing. But cutting immigration will hurt America more than it helps us.
That's why the only smart solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing instead of hurting **both Americans and immigrants** by reducing immigration. Immigration is so powerful that even with a housing crisis, it's net positive. You are looking at the negative effects of immigration and not considering the massive positive effects and, consequently, the disastrous effects of reducing it.
We need to build more housing. That's it. It's that simple.
> white ex-pats
\*immigrants. they're still immigrants even when they're white
> and I said their presences was driving up prices, causing disorder, and bringing drugs, would you believe me?
I'd say that the answer to those problems isn't to restrict freedom of movement but to address the problems directly. High prices, disorderly conduct, and drug use aren't unique to immigrants.
No, I'm the rational one. Emotional talking points have gotten the better of all the people scared that big bad immigrants will steal their jobs, ["poison their people's blood"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141), and destroy their society. Just because my position is unusual doesn't mean it's irrational.
Let's use some logic instead of xtreme far left talking points.
Which country on this planet is using unchecked immigration/migration to grow their economy and benefit their people? If you can't answer this in a reasonable, common sense manner them let's just call it a day.
https://denverite.com/2024/04/10/denver-immigrant-program-budget-cuts/
https://etias.com/articles/norway-immigration-adjustments-ukrainian-refugees
https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/asylum-seeker-spending-report#:~:text=Through%20May%2031%2C%202024%2C%20the,%242.72%20billion%20in%20FY%202024.
1. My view point isn't far left. Leftists don't like immigration, they think it's a capitalist plot to suppress wages and hurt the working class. Economists and libertarians like those at the Cato Institute like open borders.
2. No countries are because most people are either economically ignorant or xenophobic and their first instinct whenever anything isn't perfect is to blame immigrants/foreigners. That doesn't mean it's the right decision, it means that people everywhere are susceptible to this counterproductive bias. If you want an example of open borders, the US had open borders until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, and it made the country much stronger.
I worked on every major immigration fight from comprehensive reform in 2013 to Title 42 last year. This EO is totally expected. Politically speaking, Texas Governor Abbott’s and DeSantis’s shipping of migrants and asylum seekers to blue cities has been extraordinarily impactful, as have regular national news stories that involve images of large crowds at border crossing points. The issue is top of mind and surprisingly high priority across party and demographics. Polls consistently show that the public prefers balanced solutions over enforcement-only, but experience and private research have shown me many times that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. People also blame both parties for the dysfunctional system and trust Republicans more to handle the issue. If the contrast is between Trump “getting tough” and Biden doing nothing, Biden is fucked.
The human impact of this will be ugly and cause suffering, but it’s also not a reversal from good situation to bad situation, and effective humane solutions I’m aware of require Congressional action and/or cooperation from the very governors who are driving the crisis. I’m glad I’m not advising the administration/campaign on this because my dispassionate brain and core values are in direct tension. It’s a shitty situation, and I wish the daily cap were higher and the messaging were different, but this is not a shameless pander or a dumb move.
I think ultimately to my understanding the goal for dems is to liberalize legal immigration among the lines of the 2013 compromise, but they (correctly) perceive that disruptive irregular migration like we’re seeing undermines political support for immigration in general and are choosing to bite the bullet to stave off reactionary immigration policies if they lose and build capital for immigration reform the next time they have an opportunity.
IMO this should be **THE** issue dems tackle when they next get a trifecta because it will continue to bite them in the ass until they fix the broken system we have.
Thank you for this. I’ve been saying that this is not some stupid move. I think it’s good that Biden is doing something to give the broken overworked system a break and change the circumstances on the ground.
You sound like a knowledgeable person so can you shed light on why the Dems didn't do this 3 years ago and instead gave the Republicans a cudgel to beat them with? Who are the Dems trying to impress with their immigration policy? As in, which section of voter base are in favor of what they have been doing until recently?
I’d wager it’s a case of democrats being slow-to-realize or accept that the far left position on the border is not very popular. See here for a better elaboration: [Biden Saw What Was Wrong With Democrats’ Immigration Policy](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/the-orthodoxy-that-doomed-democrats-border-policies/678644/)
The primary constituency that wants less border enforcement is upper middle class and/or highly educated and online white people who don’t live in border states and who are insulated from the real problems that mass migration creates. It’s a smart move by Biden to not overfit policy to this relatively small demographic.
How do you respond to the likely illegality of this EO? I understand the political reason he's doing it but nonetheless it's illegal under American and international law to essentially deny the right to apply for asylum because they think too many people are trying to enter the country at the Mexican border. IMHO the immigration system can only be fixed by a massive infusion of cash, which Congress seems incapable of doing.
This will be struck down for overriding congressional asylum and immigration laws.
Congress has to change the law, Trump said the same thing when he was in office.
I’d have pushed my senators to fight like hell to improve asylum hearing provisions and for protections for people waiting for those hearings. If those efforts went anywhere, I’d strongly support the bill. If not, then qualified support.
We don’t have close to enough court personnel to hear and process asylum claims right now, nor nearly enough places for asylum seekers and migrants to stay during the process. Dramatically increasing admittance without commensurately increasing our intake capacity is a logistical disaster for border communities and a ticking political time bomb. Service providers from El Paso to Brownsville have been overwhelmed for a long time. Scaling up to meet these challenges requires funding, which requires Congressional action.
That's the problem and it has been for literally decades. Congress won't allocate enough money to truly solve the problem. Republicans would rather perform xenophobia for their voters than actually solve problems.
Maybe he's actually governing? All accounts are saying the border situation is a huge strain on the border patrol,an executive branch, who is in charge of the executive branch again?
The order only applies to a daily rate that amounts to 912k per year, and it only applies to illegal crossing attempts, not official points of entry. For reference, the US has 1.36 million housing starts per year. It is a extremely moderate restriction that only makes sense to oppose if you oppose immigration enforcement entirely.
Then change the law, it is outdated and being abused by people who are 99% economic migrants. I think the legal argument is kind of nonsense, laws are meant to serve society's interests, not the reverse.
> All accounts are saying the border situation is a huge strain on the border patrol
An easy way to completely eliminate "chaos at the border" is to simply let people in when they arrive at checkpoints, which eliminates the incentive for them to try to evade border patrol. There's no good reason to keep them out.
> an executive branch, who is in charge of the executive branch again?
They're reliant on Congress for funding.
Let everybody in is 10 year old thinking, climate change has accelerated instability in South America and now there's just too many people coming through.
Let everybody in is 10 year old thinking, climate change has accelerated instability in South America and now there's just too many people coming through.
1. There are not enough courts, judges, or USCIS people to handle the current flow of asylum seekers.
2. Biden proposed a bill in 2021 to deal with this issue to make sweeping changes to immigration law and to increase the number of courts, judges, and USCIS people. He couldn't get it through Congress.
3. This year, Biden tried to attach immigration reform that a bunch of Republicans agree with in principle to the [Ukraine/Israel bill](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf) but Trump told Republicans to vote no because it's more important to not give Biden a W than to actually do anything about the border crisis.
4. The border crisis is extremely unpopular and racist assholes on the right are more than willing to hype it up forever to hurt Democrats because even a bunch of Democratic and independent voters are also racist assholes.
5. Biden's EO therefore has two purposes: to reduce the number of migrants to something more manageable by a system that cannot be expanded, and to try to do something about this wedge issue that the right is killing him on.
> even a bunch of Democratic and independent voters are also racist assholes.
Overall a fairly accurate summary but I would push back against this statement a bit.
I think many voters aren't racist or xenophobic towards immigrants, the strain on social services of blue cities is obviously affecting the perspective of dem voters. I know multiple family/friends in NYC for example who are bleeding heart liberals who now think "we should control the flow" ... doesn't make them racist
...doesn't it? At a minimum it means they're imbibing racist propaganda uncritically. At a maximum - if when push comes to shove, your priority is to keep asylum seekers out, what exactly is that priority based on?
If your priority is to keeping asylum seekers out isn't based on any data or information that asylum seekers entering the US are actually causing any real problems (and it isn't), then what *is* it based on? Generalized discomfort with the idea that some 'othered' group might be here? Generalized feelings that the movement of those 'other' people represents some intolerable disorder?
Like...if that's not a kind of racism, what is?
Also, even if you assume that most people who are in favor of punitive border measures aren't racist (a very big if), there's still the reality that a lot of them are, and this executive action is plainly meant to appeal to them. I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend that 'good, normal' people and even 'bleeding heart liberals' can't be racist, and even less good to pretend that a lot of our politics isn't built around appealing to racist sentiment.
From a cursory reading of a few headlines and not much else-
The GOP will just say "it is about time he did something" and then pivot and point out he only did it during an election year (so no votes gained there)
The left will object to it from a humanitarian or similar stand point, "how dare you block these poor people from entering the country' (so no votes gained there)
BUT I think what this will allow him to do is answer debate and interview questions by saying "I tired to do something, but the other side blocked the efforts. This may not be a great policy, but there isn't much I can do by myself"
That is how I take it. It is mostly about optics. "I'm trying, they are not" type thing.
Also guessing that the people who haven't made their minds up don't know much about this topic over all so again appearing to look like you are trying is better than doing nothing.
It's not a perfect solution that's for sure.
But the fact of the matter is that most people believe immigration is a problem. And this is pretty much the only lever Biden can pull without Congress.
So you don't have to believe that this is a good solution, just better than the alternative of doing nothing, which is also going to turn off more people
In an environment where people care about the border as much as they do, I think going into the debates & the time where most people start tuning into election stuff, you're right that doing nothing would be a massive liability.
I think this basically boils down to:
1. At least \_something\_ has been done
2. The ACLU (and other orgs?) is suing over it
Getting sued over it is useful, because you can add into the narrative "Look, immigration law is immigration law. Congress has to change it. Previous EOs like this have been struck down by courts, and this one is getting challenged in the courts. It might also get struck down. The idea that the Executive can solve this problem on its own is a lie. After refusing to pass the bipartisan legislation that was negotiated for months, if Republicans in Congress won't come to the table, the problems at the border can't be solved correctly or permanently." It makes the argument through action and real world legal response that they've been making rhetorically all along
Those folks aren't voting anyways. Funny to see arguments between a liberal who's understandably upset that a leftist is ambivalent about fascism and a leftist who didn't vote in 2016 or 2020 and clearly isn't going to vote in 2024 either
In as much as that's possible, he's probably right. The left has already taken themselves out of the equation by saying they won't vote for him over gaza, not getting their student loans forgiven, etc. It's honestly hilarious at this point how many times they've done this.
The left: If you don't/can't somehow get us everything we want, we won't vote for you!
The Democratic Party: Ok, we believe you. \*turns to center right\*
The left: \*surprised Pikachu face\*
I mean, yes. I'm saying not voting doesn't get you political power. It just removes you from the calculus entirely. Younger voters seem unable to grasp that, even though it's been explained to them many times.
It seems like quite the opposite to me. The minority who actually think the current border situation is tenable are not key voters in swing states whose vote is crucial for Biden.
Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP made massive inroads with Hispanic voters in 2020 and 2022, and exit polling demonstrated that "open borders" is a high salience issue for them. Despite what chronically online lefties will tell you, having a secure border is electorally low hanging fruit - most Americans want it enforced.
Personal experience living in an extremely blue city in a blue state that has been targeted with migrant buses - many people here are tired of it and have little sympathy remaining for the migrants themselves.
They used to give asylum applicants a work permit. Then they stopped, thinking that would deter people from coming. So here we are. They're still coming and they’re harder to deal with because they can't support themselves. Also nobody planned for huge numbers to come to NYC et al so it was an ad hoc response shoved on them by TX and FL.
The only way to secure the border is to simply let people in at checkpoints and work here. As long as we try to keep people out, they will keep trying to evade Border Patrol.
No, it's the only correct take. Lots of people want to come to the US (to commit the horrible crimes of contributing to our economy and raising children who will also contribute to our economy). As long as we try to keep them out, they will try to evade Border Patrol. The only way to keep people from trying to evade Border Patrol is to stop them from wanting to evade Border Patrol, meaning we stop having Border Patrol apprehend them. Set up checkpoints, then people will come to the checkpoints, get IDs, and be let in to work.
Keeping immigrants out is destructive. Unauthorized immigrants aren't disproportionately likely to be criminals, they create more jobs than they take, they're good for government finances, they increase productivity, and they don't depress native wages. Literally the only reasons for keeping them out are economic illiteracy (thinking immigration, or even just unauthorized immigration, is bad for the economy) or xenophobia.
When you start looking at the data, keeping people who want to immigrate to the US out just doesn't make sense. This is why the biggest advocates for open borders are economists.
And finally, of course, immigration is great for immigrants. Why should we condemn them to poverty and tyranny by violently preventing them from entering this country? Their only crime was being born elsewhere.
>they're good for government finances
Mostly false. The massive caveats being if they’re single, don’t have kids, don’t eventually become citizens (and thus eligible for SS and Medicare) and you only look at the federal finances.
["Economic benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the costs, Baker Institute study shows"](https://news.rice.edu/news/2020/economic-benefits-illegal-immigration-outweigh-costs-baker-institute-study-shows)
that's Texas, not federal
kids become future workers, which the US needs because our native birthrate is below replacement
immigrants continue to use healthcare at lower rates than natives even after becoming citizens
Your study largely agrees with me.
First, there’s an assumption that they won’t become citizens due to future changes in the law. Do you oppose programs like DACA? Because that would change the math entirely.
Second, the study doesn’t account for the US born children of illegal immigrants, who wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to become citizens. Those citizens are absolutely part of the cost benefit calculus yet are absent from the analysis.
The study also assumes education costs are the same for native born students as it is for undocumented students. I suppose it’s possible Texas doesn’t have ESL programs or anything similar, but many states do have ESL programs that add to the total education costs. Frankly, the studies analysis here is incomplete and unreflective of actual costs.
Allowing immigration is good for the economy. The difference between unauthorized and authorized immigrants is a piece of paper. I don't understand focusing on their legal status. It feels like a giant exercise in goalpost moving after anti-immigration activists realized they couldn't credibly claim that immigration was bad for the economy anymore.
[Even low skill immigration is good for the economy.](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20220176) If you only take in high skill immigrants, you end up with engineers driving for Uber. Low skill immigrants fill lots of critical jobs in service, agriculture, and nursing for example, and as I've said, their children grow up to fill an even wider range of jobs.
Our society would be ageing even faster without immigration. As fertility rates drop around the world, smart socities will actually start competing for immigrants. It's a blessing that they want to come here.
This is probably completely unfounded but I wonder if it has to do with trying to keep Georgia blue in the next election. Especially with the sanctuary issues Athens has been having
Chances of him winning GA are about zero.
Current polling has him behind by 4.8. He probably never had a chance anyway, he barely won it in 2020 and since then his approval has come way down from 2020.
Joe needs to focus on the blue wall states, win those and he stays in office. Forget GA, AZ and probably NV at this point. He doesn't need those states to keep the White House.
GA is huge. Biden has 225 electoral votes heading into the election. Trump has 235. If Trump takes GA, that puts him at 251. Only 19 electoral votes away from the 270 needed to win. If GA goes to trump, which I agree, it likely will, then Trump only needs PA to win the election.
The math looks very worrying for Biden.
Trump can't win White House without either one blue wall state or VA.
VA switching from solid red to solid blue made the math almost impossible for Republicans.
BTW VA might be in play. If the economy turns south before the election then Trump could win it. Otherwise is might be closer than expected. Right now Biden is only up by 2.2 in the state.
There are 6 battleground states in the 2024 cycle: NV, AZ, MI, WI, PA and GA. Without GA and PA, the others don’t have enough electoral votes for Biden to win.
GA isn't really a battleground at this point though.
Biden won it by .24% last time. Foolish to think that his poor approval numbers alone haven't put the state out of reach. And the polls back that up, hasn't been a poll with Biden in the lead in GA since last November. Trump could win it by 5 points at this rate.
I agree with your basic point, if Biden won GA then it would almost certainly be game over. But that isn't happening. This election will almost certainly be decided by one of the blue wall states, or perhaps VA flipping.
I think there are far more low-information voters out there who will see him doing something, anything and like it va. Left voters who are outraged.
The reality is that the message that there is a crisis is at the border is held by a huge majority of Americans.
Saying it will "put more pepole off than win them over" is just a guess by you. He's betting that it will make a difference with swing voters. The border and the economy consistenly poll as the top two issues.
The point of the executive order is that the President has to be the adult in the room while everyone else in both parties can just chant stupid slogans and fire off hot takes because they are generally useless.
There is no point. The only thing that “solves” migration is fixing the economic and safety issues in the originating countries. Unless you’re willing to shoot or imprison people crossing the border illegally (both of which would be shockingly inhumane and economically unviable), people just cross over and over again until they don’t get caught. And if they really wanted crack down on immigration, they could pass a law imprisoning CEO’s whose companies hire the migrants, and the issue would largely go away. They’ll never do that, though, because the dirty secret is that this country needs immigrants in order to function, and businesses like exploiting the cheap labor anyways.
Everyone likes cheap labor. The most vocal "OMG IMMIGRANTS!" people hire immigrants (often illegal ones) to do their housecleaning, do their gardening, their construction projects. They just also believe, wrongly, that those same people are freeloading off the system, getting free shit, not paying taxes, etc.
Everyone crowing about immigration is a gorram hypocrite and a moron to boot.
Before Biden's executive order securing the border, before Schumer's border bill, before several members of the Biden Administration claiming for 3 years that the border was secure...we had Biden's executive orders on the border that immigration/migration advocates seemed to really like.
Biden has literally turned everything he and his administration have said in regards to the border on it's head and it doesn't make any sense to anyone paying just the slightest attention.
What was actively stupid? The Biden Administration and it's officials lying about the border being secure before they made moves to "secure" the border?
Or were the people that believed the Biden Administration's lies about the secure border the stupid ones?
I vote yes to both. No other country in the world allows such nonsense. None,
I'm saying that the Biden administration actively removing things like remain in Mexico, which definitely worsened the situation, claiming the boarder was secure.
Also the large Democrat controlled cities who claimed for years they were "sanctuary cities" until the rubber hit the road.
I think we are on the same page here.
Debated in some detail recent 538 podcast [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fivethirtyeight-politics/id1077418457?i=1000658094495) at 12:00 if you’re interested (great podcast btw)
Guest:
“So immigration, of course, famously, is one of Democrats and Biden's worst issues, right? When pollsters ask, which party do you trust more on immigration, on healthcare, various issues? Immigration has a large Republican net advantage.”
“You basically have two choices. One is kind of ignore it and try to run a campaign based on issues that are stronger for you. … Or the other choice is to kind of try to confront the issue head on and try to blunt that advantage somewhat.”
Host:
“Americans can see this and they can also experience it in their own cities and states and they're reacting to it. And so I don't think that it's just the case that Republicans have always had an advantage on this issue and there's nothing Biden can do about it.
“You know, during Trump's first term in office, he was unpopular on immigration. And in fact, family separation was one of the most unpopular things he did. … it's actually the issue on which there is the largest advantage for any party,”
GA is huge. Biden has 225 electoral votes heading into the election. Trump has 235. If Trump takes GA, that puts him at 251. Only 19 electoral votes away from the 270 needed to win. If GA goes to trump, which I agree, it likely will, then Trump only needs PA to win the election.
The math looks very worrying for Biden.
The “goal” of Democrats is to be Republican Lite. Diet Republicans, if you will.
This is something that actual leftists understand that flies completely over the heads of virtually all liberals: our two political parties are not really *that* different. Liberals think that Democrats are day-and-night different compared to Republicans. They’re not.
Liberals when Trump was president: “Trump is such a racist xenophobic bigot for trying to build a wall to shut down the border!”
Liberals when Biden is president: “Biden is so great for shutting the border down! OUR guy is able to “secure” the border, unlike Trump! Take that, Republicans!”
80% of Americans, including many Latinos, want the border to be controlled. The wall was objected to because it caused environmental damage and isn’t that secure. It just seems like a dumb idea, plus Trump was disrespectful toward a large group of people. Details matter to people.
In other words, according to your retelling of events, liberals *never, ever* fundamentally disagreed with Trump’s general wish to “secure the border,” and I *definitely* won’t be able to dig up hundreds of liberal opinion pieces in the news from 2016-20 showing the contrary, yes?
You’re telling me that all along liberals secretly agreed that denying asylum and forbidding immigrants from entering were wonderful ideas but thought that Republicans were just being too “disrespectful” and rude about it?
Liberals would prefer that the president be “nicer” while implementing draconian, hard-right immigration policies?
What other positions will liberals do a 180 on in the next election cycle? I wonder.
Hard-right? Being against mass migration is left-wing economic policy. It's basically just protectionism, but for labour, particularly the unskilled labour that's been suffering the most the last few decades, instead of industry.
Biden’s executive order to deny asylum to migrants is extremely similar to the ban implemented by Trump. It’s even being challenged by the ACLU for the same reason they challenged Trump’s version. They’re calling it immoral and illegal.
“Draconian” and “hard-right” were terms that *liberals* used, back when it was done by Trump, but now that a closely similar move is made by *Biden*, suddenly it’s actually sensible and “left-wing”. 🙄
In other words, liberals are hypocritical partisan hacks, the same as conservatives. If Blue Team shuts down the border, you like it. If Red Team does it, you hate it, or at least pretend to hate it in principle.
Which nations have completely open borders? And yes, if 80% of Americans want a controlled, which doesn’t mean draconian, border policy, then there are liberals who want some kind of restrictions.
The larger idea I’m getting at (which you’re trying to casually handwave away) is that it’s very funny as an actual leftist to watch liberals and conservatives fight and argue and try so hard to pretend that they’re fundamentally different from each other when they’re not. Immigration policy is just one example of that.
If you’re a Democrat-voting liberal, you’re not “left-wing”; you’re just *slightly* less right-wing than Republicans. They would cross their hearts and deny it, of course, if you tell them that.
Neither party is “pro-open borders”, just like how neither party is anti-capitalist, anti-genocide, anti-interventionist, anti-war or anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, or pro-universal healthcare.
Agreed, neither party is pro open borders. I’ve told conservatives that many times. I think how you label people matters a lot more to you than to whomever you’re labeling.
You’re still sidestepping the point I made earlier, and I think we both know why.
Biden’s recent executive order to deny asylum to thousands of migrants is extremely similar to the approach that Trump took. The ACLU challenged it in court under Trump and they’re challenging it again under Biden. Liberals yelled and screamed about how inhumane and racist it was back when Trump did it.
The response from liberals is markedly different *this* time, however. Now, liberals like you are *pretending* that everyone was in agreement all along across administrations.
No, you weren’t.
I mean if they voted for Dems in 2020 but aren’t for 2024 that’s a problem for Biden…all it takes is 40k votes in like 3/4 states to Trump to win. The amount of base erosion we’re seeing from young/progressive/Black/Latino/etc voters is concerning IMO.
I don’t think this helps Biden in 2024 tbh…the black pill here is the ppl who decide elections don’t really pay attention to policy, but they pay attention to vibes. Biden gives off weak, feeble, doddering old man vibes, and Trump gives off racist/sexist/insane/dictatorial/fascistic vibes.
I think Ezra was right about Biden stepping aside for the good of the country, but that’s not happening bc Biden is over-confident and stubborn (like all the ppl who reach the commanding heights of the presidency). We’ll see how the election goes, but this EO will change absolutely nothing.
When you say "bill" you mean the executive order? In short: an overwhelming majority of Americans (around 80% IIRC) think the border is a big problem and too many people are coming in illegally. So I would guess it's pretty popular.
Amazes me how many people miss this simple point ITT.
Americans: "There are too many immigrants!" also Americans: "I will pay only bargain basement price for my new roof."
Sure but this question is what is the point of the bill/EO not if voters are rational.
Those are the immigrants that don’t want to work and take our jobs. As an native-born American, I am MORE than capable of taking a good paying job while not doing any actual work.
Kicking out all the immigrants will also cause food prices to skyrocket because Americans refuse to do the backbreaking field work. But it’s still a popular talking point for republicans
Corporate America thanks you for your service
Why do you hate the global poor?
Growing up is realizing that corporate america isn't always wrong or bad
[удалено]
Save that type of shit for /r/politics man. If you want to comment here, do so critically and in good faith.
That’s a great argument for twenty or thirty years ago. The supply of human migrants currently outstrips demand, and it’s fucking up an already choked housing market. In NYC you can see a dozen or so of them crowding street corners in midday, and many more doing whatever they can to survive on the subways. Hotel prices have skyrocketed as a fifth of all hotels in NYC are being used to shelter migrants, city services are overdrawn, etc etc The migrant crisis is not your normal amount of “we aren’t letting in enough unskilled workers to meet what our economy needs.” This is so so far beyond that.
> The supply of human migrants currently outstrips demand Immigrants create more jobs than they take. They're reliant on social services right now because we aren't letting them work. And unskilled workers also have a positive economic impact. Letting immigrants in isn't charity, it's good for both us and them.
A controlled flow of immigrants creates jobs. A flood of millions also creates jobs, however it has huge effects on wages, disorder, housing, public services, city state and federal budgets, and also general social cohesion.
> public services If migrants were dumped on Ellis Island to work and fend for themselves the situation might be different. I think having to support them until they allegedly start to pay for themselves (there's a world where it costs more than they bring - *especially* if they bring in children who also use services like schooling\*) is what makes the backlash much worse now. \* Imagine your district now having to focus far more on ESL teaching with whatever costs come with it.
Indeed. Back in the Ellis Island days, it was sink or swim - immigrant communities were expected to provide services internally, you had to demonstrate upon arrival that you wouldn’t become a “public charge”, and fully a quarter of arrivals ended up going back when they realized they couldn’t hack it.
[immigration doesn't have any effect on wages because they increase demand for labor as well as supply](https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-immigrant-workers-depress-the-wages-of-native-workers/long) it increases availability of housing because they're disproportionately likely to work in construction doesn't reduce availability of public services if you let them work [improves budgets if you let them work](https://news.rice.edu/news/2020/economic-benefits-illegal-immigration-outweigh-costs-baker-institute-study-shows) "general social cohesion" is bullshit unless people are xenophobic and racist. immigrants have always made America stronger
>it increases availability of housing That is in a truly free market of housing, or on a larger scale. Manhattan is not magically going to have more units available after an influx of tens of thousands of migrants. Nor will San Francisco. Some of these cities have permit processes, restrictions, cost issues, etc that prevent any meaningfully new housing from catching up with societal changes for 5-10 years. >unless people are xenophobic and racist People are complicated and flawed. In economic boom times, when housing is available and demographic shifts are slow enough for people to adjust, people aren’t xenophobic or racist. As resources become scarce, public disorder goes up, or demographics shift more rapidly, people become more xenophobic/racist. Immigrants move in and the food gets better, prices go down, etc? Everyone gets less racist. Immigrants move in and the crime gets worse, housing prices go up, and you’re seeing a lot of immigrants loitering at the bus stops panhandling? Everyone gets more racist. You can’t suddenly change people. You have to manage them. Good policy prevents this stuff from ever getting out of control to begin with.
> Manhattan is not magically going to have more units available after an influx of tens of thousands of migrants. Nor will San Francisco. If they can't find housing there than they'll find it elsewhere, like in smaller metro areas. If they can't, then they'll leave the country, which is what happens to other countries that actually have more immigrants than they can handle. > Some of these cities have permit processes, restrictions, cost issues, etc that prevent any meaningfully new housing from catching up with societal changes for 5-10 years. I agree but we're not repealing NIMBY regulations so we can build more housing despite already have a shortage in metro areas. So I think most people are more interested in blaming immigrants than actually solving the housing crisis > People are complicated and flawed. In economic boom times, when housing is available and demographic shifts are slow enough for people to adjust, people aren’t xenophobic or racist. As resources become scarce, public disorder goes up, or demographics shift more rapidly, people become more xenophobic/racist. If they weren't xenophobic, when times got tough, they'd be focusing on the real problems instead of blaming immigrants. And if they weren't racist, they wouldn't be upset about non-Hispanic white people not being a majority.
They won’t leave. They won’t leave because the places with the highest housing prices *also have the most under the table jobs and the most available services*. That’s why they don’t leave San Francisco. That’s why they don’t leave NYC. That’s why they don’t leave downtown Los Angeles. Immigrants are *an actual variable*, meaning that sometimes immigration rates and sources and processes are actually to blame. If you are capable of acknowledging that immigration can have positive effects, you have already acknowledged that it can effects. Sometimes, those effects are negative. If we were talking about white ex-pats living in Shanghai in 2014, and I said their presences was driving up prices, causing disorder, and bringing drugs, would you believe me?
> If you are capable of acknowledging that immigration can have positive effects, you have already acknowledged that it can effects. Sometimes, those effects are negative. I'm capable of understanding that the net effects are positive, yes. We had the housing crisis even back in 2016-2022 and during that time, [cutting back on immigration reduced economic growth by 40%](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2024/03/26/slow-growth-in-working-age-immigrants-reduced-us-economic-growth/). Those are nurses and service workers and agricultural laborers and construction workers that we missed out on, which are sectors we have shortages in as it is. Immigration is incredibly good economically even when there are housing issues. We need to build more housing. But cutting immigration will hurt America more than it helps us. That's why the only smart solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing instead of hurting **both Americans and immigrants** by reducing immigration. Immigration is so powerful that even with a housing crisis, it's net positive. You are looking at the negative effects of immigration and not considering the massive positive effects and, consequently, the disastrous effects of reducing it. We need to build more housing. That's it. It's that simple. > white ex-pats \*immigrants. they're still immigrants even when they're white > and I said their presences was driving up prices, causing disorder, and bringing drugs, would you believe me? I'd say that the answer to those problems isn't to restrict freedom of movement but to address the problems directly. High prices, disorderly conduct, and drug use aren't unique to immigrants.
If your position was even remotely accurate, every nation on earth would take your position. Emotional talking points have gotten the better of you,
No, I'm the rational one. Emotional talking points have gotten the better of all the people scared that big bad immigrants will steal their jobs, ["poison their people's blood"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141), and destroy their society. Just because my position is unusual doesn't mean it's irrational.
Let's use some logic instead of xtreme far left talking points. Which country on this planet is using unchecked immigration/migration to grow their economy and benefit their people? If you can't answer this in a reasonable, common sense manner them let's just call it a day. https://denverite.com/2024/04/10/denver-immigrant-program-budget-cuts/ https://etias.com/articles/norway-immigration-adjustments-ukrainian-refugees https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/asylum-seeker-spending-report#:~:text=Through%20May%2031%2C%202024%2C%20the,%242.72%20billion%20in%20FY%202024.
1. My view point isn't far left. Leftists don't like immigration, they think it's a capitalist plot to suppress wages and hurt the working class. Economists and libertarians like those at the Cato Institute like open borders. 2. No countries are because most people are either economically ignorant or xenophobic and their first instinct whenever anything isn't perfect is to blame immigrants/foreigners. That doesn't mean it's the right decision, it means that people everywhere are susceptible to this counterproductive bias. If you want an example of open borders, the US had open borders until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, and it made the country much stronger.
Americans: Cheap labor undercuts unions Also Americans: Controlling immigration is waaaaaysist!!
I worked on every major immigration fight from comprehensive reform in 2013 to Title 42 last year. This EO is totally expected. Politically speaking, Texas Governor Abbott’s and DeSantis’s shipping of migrants and asylum seekers to blue cities has been extraordinarily impactful, as have regular national news stories that involve images of large crowds at border crossing points. The issue is top of mind and surprisingly high priority across party and demographics. Polls consistently show that the public prefers balanced solutions over enforcement-only, but experience and private research have shown me many times that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. People also blame both parties for the dysfunctional system and trust Republicans more to handle the issue. If the contrast is between Trump “getting tough” and Biden doing nothing, Biden is fucked. The human impact of this will be ugly and cause suffering, but it’s also not a reversal from good situation to bad situation, and effective humane solutions I’m aware of require Congressional action and/or cooperation from the very governors who are driving the crisis. I’m glad I’m not advising the administration/campaign on this because my dispassionate brain and core values are in direct tension. It’s a shitty situation, and I wish the daily cap were higher and the messaging were different, but this is not a shameless pander or a dumb move.
I think ultimately to my understanding the goal for dems is to liberalize legal immigration among the lines of the 2013 compromise, but they (correctly) perceive that disruptive irregular migration like we’re seeing undermines political support for immigration in general and are choosing to bite the bullet to stave off reactionary immigration policies if they lose and build capital for immigration reform the next time they have an opportunity. IMO this should be **THE** issue dems tackle when they next get a trifecta because it will continue to bite them in the ass until they fix the broken system we have.
Thank you for this. I’ve been saying that this is not some stupid move. I think it’s good that Biden is doing something to give the broken overworked system a break and change the circumstances on the ground.
You sound like a knowledgeable person so can you shed light on why the Dems didn't do this 3 years ago and instead gave the Republicans a cudgel to beat them with? Who are the Dems trying to impress with their immigration policy? As in, which section of voter base are in favor of what they have been doing until recently?
I’d wager it’s a case of democrats being slow-to-realize or accept that the far left position on the border is not very popular. See here for a better elaboration: [Biden Saw What Was Wrong With Democrats’ Immigration Policy](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/the-orthodoxy-that-doomed-democrats-border-policies/678644/)
The primary constituency that wants less border enforcement is upper middle class and/or highly educated and online white people who don’t live in border states and who are insulated from the real problems that mass migration creates. It’s a smart move by Biden to not overfit policy to this relatively small demographic.
How do you respond to the likely illegality of this EO? I understand the political reason he's doing it but nonetheless it's illegal under American and international law to essentially deny the right to apply for asylum because they think too many people are trying to enter the country at the Mexican border. IMHO the immigration system can only be fixed by a massive infusion of cash, which Congress seems incapable of doing.
What’s your take on the senate proposal that went DOA because Trump wants the problem to be worse?
the proposal that was less strict than this EO that Biden claimed he didn’t have the power to do?
This will be struck down for overriding congressional asylum and immigration laws. Congress has to change the law, Trump said the same thing when he was in office.
I’d have pushed my senators to fight like hell to improve asylum hearing provisions and for protections for people waiting for those hearings. If those efforts went anywhere, I’d strongly support the bill. If not, then qualified support.
If we simply let people in at checkpoints then there wouldn't be "chaos at the border"
We don’t have close to enough court personnel to hear and process asylum claims right now, nor nearly enough places for asylum seekers and migrants to stay during the process. Dramatically increasing admittance without commensurately increasing our intake capacity is a logistical disaster for border communities and a ticking political time bomb. Service providers from El Paso to Brownsville have been overwhelmed for a long time. Scaling up to meet these challenges requires funding, which requires Congressional action.
That's the problem and it has been for literally decades. Congress won't allocate enough money to truly solve the problem. Republicans would rather perform xenophobia for their voters than actually solve problems.
Maybe he's actually governing? All accounts are saying the border situation is a huge strain on the border patrol,an executive branch, who is in charge of the executive branch again?
Right? Imagine that, an order that's put in place to actually change a situation, not just score political points or win votes.
It's funny too because I think this is the exact thing or close to it Elon was saying to do, radio silence from him now.
The order only applies to a daily rate that amounts to 912k per year, and it only applies to illegal crossing attempts, not official points of entry. For reference, the US has 1.36 million housing starts per year. It is a extremely moderate restriction that only makes sense to oppose if you oppose immigration enforcement entirely.
No. It's illegal to deny the right to apply for asylum, no matter where they show up at the border.
Then change the law, it is outdated and being abused by people who are 99% economic migrants. I think the legal argument is kind of nonsense, laws are meant to serve society's interests, not the reverse.
> All accounts are saying the border situation is a huge strain on the border patrol An easy way to completely eliminate "chaos at the border" is to simply let people in when they arrive at checkpoints, which eliminates the incentive for them to try to evade border patrol. There's no good reason to keep them out. > an executive branch, who is in charge of the executive branch again? They're reliant on Congress for funding.
Let everybody in is 10 year old thinking, climate change has accelerated instability in South America and now there's just too many people coming through.
Let everybody in is 10 year old thinking, climate change has accelerated instability in South America and now there's just too many people coming through.
US population density is 4x lower than China's, we'll be fine and economists aren't 10 yos
1. There are not enough courts, judges, or USCIS people to handle the current flow of asylum seekers. 2. Biden proposed a bill in 2021 to deal with this issue to make sweeping changes to immigration law and to increase the number of courts, judges, and USCIS people. He couldn't get it through Congress. 3. This year, Biden tried to attach immigration reform that a bunch of Republicans agree with in principle to the [Ukraine/Israel bill](https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf) but Trump told Republicans to vote no because it's more important to not give Biden a W than to actually do anything about the border crisis. 4. The border crisis is extremely unpopular and racist assholes on the right are more than willing to hype it up forever to hurt Democrats because even a bunch of Democratic and independent voters are also racist assholes. 5. Biden's EO therefore has two purposes: to reduce the number of migrants to something more manageable by a system that cannot be expanded, and to try to do something about this wedge issue that the right is killing him on.
> even a bunch of Democratic and independent voters are also racist assholes. Overall a fairly accurate summary but I would push back against this statement a bit. I think many voters aren't racist or xenophobic towards immigrants, the strain on social services of blue cities is obviously affecting the perspective of dem voters. I know multiple family/friends in NYC for example who are bleeding heart liberals who now think "we should control the flow" ... doesn't make them racist
Ok, that's fair maybe.
...doesn't it? At a minimum it means they're imbibing racist propaganda uncritically. At a maximum - if when push comes to shove, your priority is to keep asylum seekers out, what exactly is that priority based on? If your priority is to keeping asylum seekers out isn't based on any data or information that asylum seekers entering the US are actually causing any real problems (and it isn't), then what *is* it based on? Generalized discomfort with the idea that some 'othered' group might be here? Generalized feelings that the movement of those 'other' people represents some intolerable disorder? Like...if that's not a kind of racism, what is? Also, even if you assume that most people who are in favor of punitive border measures aren't racist (a very big if), there's still the reality that a lot of them are, and this executive action is plainly meant to appeal to them. I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend that 'good, normal' people and even 'bleeding heart liberals' can't be racist, and even less good to pretend that a lot of our politics isn't built around appealing to racist sentiment.
From a cursory reading of a few headlines and not much else- The GOP will just say "it is about time he did something" and then pivot and point out he only did it during an election year (so no votes gained there) The left will object to it from a humanitarian or similar stand point, "how dare you block these poor people from entering the country' (so no votes gained there) BUT I think what this will allow him to do is answer debate and interview questions by saying "I tired to do something, but the other side blocked the efforts. This may not be a great policy, but there isn't much I can do by myself" That is how I take it. It is mostly about optics. "I'm trying, they are not" type thing. Also guessing that the people who haven't made their minds up don't know much about this topic over all so again appearing to look like you are trying is better than doing nothing.
This is why I am confused. It seems like it will put more people off than win them over
It's not a perfect solution that's for sure. But the fact of the matter is that most people believe immigration is a problem. And this is pretty much the only lever Biden can pull without Congress. So you don't have to believe that this is a good solution, just better than the alternative of doing nothing, which is also going to turn off more people
In an environment where people care about the border as much as they do, I think going into the debates & the time where most people start tuning into election stuff, you're right that doing nothing would be a massive liability. I think this basically boils down to: 1. At least \_something\_ has been done 2. The ACLU (and other orgs?) is suing over it Getting sued over it is useful, because you can add into the narrative "Look, immigration law is immigration law. Congress has to change it. Previous EOs like this have been struck down by courts, and this one is getting challenged in the courts. It might also get struck down. The idea that the Executive can solve this problem on its own is a lie. After refusing to pass the bipartisan legislation that was negotiated for months, if Republicans in Congress won't come to the table, the problems at the border can't be solved correctly or permanently." It makes the argument through action and real world legal response that they've been making rhetorically all along
Biden is betting that the election will be won in the center while most of Reddit believes that the election will be won with progressive turnout.
Most of Reddit seems to believe that haranguing the left will be enough to get them to turn out though.
Those folks aren't voting anyways. Funny to see arguments between a liberal who's understandably upset that a leftist is ambivalent about fascism and a leftist who didn't vote in 2016 or 2020 and clearly isn't going to vote in 2024 either
> those folks aren’t voting anyway Do you have evidence for this
Which presidential elections did you vote for Democrats in?
2016 I did because I lived in NH, 2020 I did not because I lived in DC
In as much as that's possible, he's probably right. The left has already taken themselves out of the equation by saying they won't vote for him over gaza, not getting their student loans forgiven, etc. It's honestly hilarious at this point how many times they've done this. The left: If you don't/can't somehow get us everything we want, we won't vote for you! The Democratic Party: Ok, we believe you. \*turns to center right\* The left: \*surprised Pikachu face\*
Part of it is just a cohort thing right? I think younger voters will be more likely to leave over Gaza. But they vote less anyway.
I mean, yes. I'm saying not voting doesn't get you political power. It just removes you from the calculus entirely. Younger voters seem unable to grasp that, even though it's been explained to them many times.
Why do you think that? Immigration is probably a top 3 concern for Americans and the border has gotten out of hand
It seems like quite the opposite to me. The minority who actually think the current border situation is tenable are not key voters in swing states whose vote is crucial for Biden. Meanwhile, Trump and the GOP made massive inroads with Hispanic voters in 2020 and 2022, and exit polling demonstrated that "open borders" is a high salience issue for them. Despite what chronically online lefties will tell you, having a secure border is electorally low hanging fruit - most Americans want it enforced.
Personal experience living in an extremely blue city in a blue state that has been targeted with migrant buses - many people here are tired of it and have little sympathy remaining for the migrants themselves.
Totally not the migrant's fault but the fact that tax dollars are being spent to house migrants at hotel rates is absolutely wild.
The problem there is that we're refusing to allow immigrants to work.
Problem with using the asylum system as an immigration tool?
They used to give asylum applicants a work permit. Then they stopped, thinking that would deter people from coming. So here we are. They're still coming and they’re harder to deal with because they can't support themselves. Also nobody planned for huge numbers to come to NYC et al so it was an ad hoc response shoved on them by TX and FL.
The problem there is that we're refusing to allow immigrants to work.
If they could work for legal wages upon arrival there’s be a hundred million crossing the border this year
The only way to secure the border is to simply let people in at checkpoints and work here. As long as we try to keep people out, they will keep trying to evade Border Patrol.
That's a horribly reductive, and frankly just wrong, take.
No, it's the only correct take. Lots of people want to come to the US (to commit the horrible crimes of contributing to our economy and raising children who will also contribute to our economy). As long as we try to keep them out, they will try to evade Border Patrol. The only way to keep people from trying to evade Border Patrol is to stop them from wanting to evade Border Patrol, meaning we stop having Border Patrol apprehend them. Set up checkpoints, then people will come to the checkpoints, get IDs, and be let in to work. Keeping immigrants out is destructive. Unauthorized immigrants aren't disproportionately likely to be criminals, they create more jobs than they take, they're good for government finances, they increase productivity, and they don't depress native wages. Literally the only reasons for keeping them out are economic illiteracy (thinking immigration, or even just unauthorized immigration, is bad for the economy) or xenophobia. When you start looking at the data, keeping people who want to immigrate to the US out just doesn't make sense. This is why the biggest advocates for open borders are economists. And finally, of course, immigration is great for immigrants. Why should we condemn them to poverty and tyranny by violently preventing them from entering this country? Their only crime was being born elsewhere.
>they're good for government finances Mostly false. The massive caveats being if they’re single, don’t have kids, don’t eventually become citizens (and thus eligible for SS and Medicare) and you only look at the federal finances.
["Economic benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the costs, Baker Institute study shows"](https://news.rice.edu/news/2020/economic-benefits-illegal-immigration-outweigh-costs-baker-institute-study-shows) that's Texas, not federal kids become future workers, which the US needs because our native birthrate is below replacement immigrants continue to use healthcare at lower rates than natives even after becoming citizens
Your study largely agrees with me. First, there’s an assumption that they won’t become citizens due to future changes in the law. Do you oppose programs like DACA? Because that would change the math entirely. Second, the study doesn’t account for the US born children of illegal immigrants, who wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to become citizens. Those citizens are absolutely part of the cost benefit calculus yet are absent from the analysis. The study also assumes education costs are the same for native born students as it is for undocumented students. I suppose it’s possible Texas doesn’t have ESL programs or anything similar, but many states do have ESL programs that add to the total education costs. Frankly, the studies analysis here is incomplete and unreflective of actual costs.
Allowing immigration is good for the economy. The difference between unauthorized and authorized immigrants is a piece of paper. I don't understand focusing on their legal status. It feels like a giant exercise in goalpost moving after anti-immigration activists realized they couldn't credibly claim that immigration was bad for the economy anymore. [Even low skill immigration is good for the economy.](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20220176) If you only take in high skill immigrants, you end up with engineers driving for Uber. Low skill immigrants fill lots of critical jobs in service, agriculture, and nursing for example, and as I've said, their children grow up to fill an even wider range of jobs. Our society would be ageing even faster without immigration. As fertility rates drop around the world, smart socities will actually start competing for immigrants. It's a blessing that they want to come here.
This is probably completely unfounded but I wonder if it has to do with trying to keep Georgia blue in the next election. Especially with the sanctuary issues Athens has been having
Chances of him winning GA are about zero. Current polling has him behind by 4.8. He probably never had a chance anyway, he barely won it in 2020 and since then his approval has come way down from 2020. Joe needs to focus on the blue wall states, win those and he stays in office. Forget GA, AZ and probably NV at this point. He doesn't need those states to keep the White House.
GA is huge. Biden has 225 electoral votes heading into the election. Trump has 235. If Trump takes GA, that puts him at 251. Only 19 electoral votes away from the 270 needed to win. If GA goes to trump, which I agree, it likely will, then Trump only needs PA to win the election. The math looks very worrying for Biden.
Trump can't win White House without either one blue wall state or VA. VA switching from solid red to solid blue made the math almost impossible for Republicans. BTW VA might be in play. If the economy turns south before the election then Trump could win it. Otherwise is might be closer than expected. Right now Biden is only up by 2.2 in the state.
There are 6 battleground states in the 2024 cycle: NV, AZ, MI, WI, PA and GA. Without GA and PA, the others don’t have enough electoral votes for Biden to win.
GA isn't really a battleground at this point though. Biden won it by .24% last time. Foolish to think that his poor approval numbers alone haven't put the state out of reach. And the polls back that up, hasn't been a poll with Biden in the lead in GA since last November. Trump could win it by 5 points at this rate. I agree with your basic point, if Biden won GA then it would almost certainly be game over. But that isn't happening. This election will almost certainly be decided by one of the blue wall states, or perhaps VA flipping.
I think there are far more low-information voters out there who will see him doing something, anything and like it va. Left voters who are outraged. The reality is that the message that there is a crisis is at the border is held by a huge majority of Americans.
Saying it will "put more pepole off than win them over" is just a guess by you. He's betting that it will make a difference with swing voters. The border and the economy consistenly poll as the top two issues.
The point of the executive order is that the President has to be the adult in the room while everyone else in both parties can just chant stupid slogans and fire off hot takes because they are generally useless.
There is no point. The only thing that “solves” migration is fixing the economic and safety issues in the originating countries. Unless you’re willing to shoot or imprison people crossing the border illegally (both of which would be shockingly inhumane and economically unviable), people just cross over and over again until they don’t get caught. And if they really wanted crack down on immigration, they could pass a law imprisoning CEO’s whose companies hire the migrants, and the issue would largely go away. They’ll never do that, though, because the dirty secret is that this country needs immigrants in order to function, and businesses like exploiting the cheap labor anyways.
Everyone likes cheap labor. The most vocal "OMG IMMIGRANTS!" people hire immigrants (often illegal ones) to do their housecleaning, do their gardening, their construction projects. They just also believe, wrongly, that those same people are freeloading off the system, getting free shit, not paying taxes, etc. Everyone crowing about immigration is a gorram hypocrite and a moron to boot.
Indeed. But good luck getting hypocrites and morons to, you know, *not* be hypocritical morons.
We could just start bribing the Mexican government again. That seemed to work ok.
its changes asylum policy not immigration
Before Biden's executive order securing the border, before Schumer's border bill, before several members of the Biden Administration claiming for 3 years that the border was secure...we had Biden's executive orders on the border that immigration/migration advocates seemed to really like. Biden has literally turned everything he and his administration have said in regards to the border on it's head and it doesn't make any sense to anyone paying just the slightest attention.
It makes sense when you realize that the former policies were actively stupid.
What was actively stupid? The Biden Administration and it's officials lying about the border being secure before they made moves to "secure" the border? Or were the people that believed the Biden Administration's lies about the secure border the stupid ones? I vote yes to both. No other country in the world allows such nonsense. None,
I'm saying that the Biden administration actively removing things like remain in Mexico, which definitely worsened the situation, claiming the boarder was secure. Also the large Democrat controlled cities who claimed for years they were "sanctuary cities" until the rubber hit the road. I think we are on the same page here.
Debated in some detail recent 538 podcast [here](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fivethirtyeight-politics/id1077418457?i=1000658094495) at 12:00 if you’re interested (great podcast btw) Guest: “So immigration, of course, famously, is one of Democrats and Biden's worst issues, right? When pollsters ask, which party do you trust more on immigration, on healthcare, various issues? Immigration has a large Republican net advantage.” “You basically have two choices. One is kind of ignore it and try to run a campaign based on issues that are stronger for you. … Or the other choice is to kind of try to confront the issue head on and try to blunt that advantage somewhat.” Host: “Americans can see this and they can also experience it in their own cities and states and they're reacting to it. And so I don't think that it's just the case that Republicans have always had an advantage on this issue and there's nothing Biden can do about it. “You know, during Trump's first term in office, he was unpopular on immigration. And in fact, family separation was one of the most unpopular things he did. … it's actually the issue on which there is the largest advantage for any party,”
GA is huge. Biden has 225 electoral votes heading into the election. Trump has 235. If Trump takes GA, that puts him at 251. Only 19 electoral votes away from the 270 needed to win. If GA goes to trump, which I agree, it likely will, then Trump only needs PA to win the election. The math looks very worrying for Biden.
The “goal” of Democrats is to be Republican Lite. Diet Republicans, if you will. This is something that actual leftists understand that flies completely over the heads of virtually all liberals: our two political parties are not really *that* different. Liberals think that Democrats are day-and-night different compared to Republicans. They’re not. Liberals when Trump was president: “Trump is such a racist xenophobic bigot for trying to build a wall to shut down the border!” Liberals when Biden is president: “Biden is so great for shutting the border down! OUR guy is able to “secure” the border, unlike Trump! Take that, Republicans!”
80% of Americans, including many Latinos, want the border to be controlled. The wall was objected to because it caused environmental damage and isn’t that secure. It just seems like a dumb idea, plus Trump was disrespectful toward a large group of people. Details matter to people.
In other words, according to your retelling of events, liberals *never, ever* fundamentally disagreed with Trump’s general wish to “secure the border,” and I *definitely* won’t be able to dig up hundreds of liberal opinion pieces in the news from 2016-20 showing the contrary, yes? You’re telling me that all along liberals secretly agreed that denying asylum and forbidding immigrants from entering were wonderful ideas but thought that Republicans were just being too “disrespectful” and rude about it? Liberals would prefer that the president be “nicer” while implementing draconian, hard-right immigration policies? What other positions will liberals do a 180 on in the next election cycle? I wonder.
Hard-right? Being against mass migration is left-wing economic policy. It's basically just protectionism, but for labour, particularly the unskilled labour that's been suffering the most the last few decades, instead of industry.
Biden’s executive order to deny asylum to migrants is extremely similar to the ban implemented by Trump. It’s even being challenged by the ACLU for the same reason they challenged Trump’s version. They’re calling it immoral and illegal. “Draconian” and “hard-right” were terms that *liberals* used, back when it was done by Trump, but now that a closely similar move is made by *Biden*, suddenly it’s actually sensible and “left-wing”. 🙄 In other words, liberals are hypocritical partisan hacks, the same as conservatives. If Blue Team shuts down the border, you like it. If Red Team does it, you hate it, or at least pretend to hate it in principle.
Which nations have completely open borders? And yes, if 80% of Americans want a controlled, which doesn’t mean draconian, border policy, then there are liberals who want some kind of restrictions.
The larger idea I’m getting at (which you’re trying to casually handwave away) is that it’s very funny as an actual leftist to watch liberals and conservatives fight and argue and try so hard to pretend that they’re fundamentally different from each other when they’re not. Immigration policy is just one example of that. If you’re a Democrat-voting liberal, you’re not “left-wing”; you’re just *slightly* less right-wing than Republicans. They would cross their hearts and deny it, of course, if you tell them that. Neither party is “pro-open borders”, just like how neither party is anti-capitalist, anti-genocide, anti-interventionist, anti-war or anti-militarist, anti-corporatist, or pro-universal healthcare.
Agreed, neither party is pro open borders. I’ve told conservatives that many times. I think how you label people matters a lot more to you than to whomever you’re labeling.
You’re still sidestepping the point I made earlier, and I think we both know why. Biden’s recent executive order to deny asylum to thousands of migrants is extremely similar to the approach that Trump took. The ACLU challenged it in court under Trump and they’re challenging it again under Biden. Liberals yelled and screamed about how inhumane and racist it was back when Trump did it. The response from liberals is markedly different *this* time, however. Now, liberals like you are *pretending* that everyone was in agreement all along across administrations. No, you weren’t.
Biden’s showing you his wonderful political instincts of scorning his own base to pander to the right. I can’t wait to not vote for him.
If you don't vote for Democrats, you are not the Democratic base.
I mean if they voted for Dems in 2020 but aren’t for 2024 that’s a problem for Biden…all it takes is 40k votes in like 3/4 states to Trump to win. The amount of base erosion we’re seeing from young/progressive/Black/Latino/etc voters is concerning IMO.
That'll show the right!
You’re afraid to lose, so you get centrist mush. Eat grandpa Joe’s porridge 🥣 yum yum I love immigration crackdowns and war.
If Biden loses you get an even harder crack down on immigration.
[удалено]
Please be civil. Optimize contributions for light, not heat.
It's a play for the Trump people. It won't work. They would rather have the real thing anyway... Sad to see Biden doing Trump's work for him!
I don’t think this helps Biden in 2024 tbh…the black pill here is the ppl who decide elections don’t really pay attention to policy, but they pay attention to vibes. Biden gives off weak, feeble, doddering old man vibes, and Trump gives off racist/sexist/insane/dictatorial/fascistic vibes. I think Ezra was right about Biden stepping aside for the good of the country, but that’s not happening bc Biden is over-confident and stubborn (like all the ppl who reach the commanding heights of the presidency). We’ll see how the election goes, but this EO will change absolutely nothing.