Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). [See the wiki page for more information]. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
"I think the democrats are dumb for doing things propaganda tells me they are doing but aren't actually doing, and let's face it, the propaganda isn't the problem"
Right. Democrats do not advocate for open borders. They want more immigration than the GOP does, but "more" does not mean "unlimited and without any checks of any kind."
At least for the US, we don’t live in a welfare state. So your example using New York and other cities is flawed. Yes, accepting a huge immigrant population without enough resources is bad for your overall population. But New York and Chicago etc are just cities.
Now imagine if we lived in a country where the wealthiest people who lived here were taxed a fair amount of help maintain social welfare and infrastructure. Imagine a country where the blue states that accept immigrants didn’t have subsidize red states that drive most of the fear mongering. Imagine a country that actually had an effective naturalization process.
The other issue here is you’re arguing weak borders but using asylum seekers as your example. I think you’re confusing two terms. Weak borders means not enforcing immigration laws but asylum seekers are abiding immigration laws. They are here legally. I don’t think democrats are for “weak borders.” That’s just a Republican talking point. Didn’t Obama and Biden have very high deportation records during their respective terms?
Republicans run on anti-any immigration at all (well, anti-brown people immigration) and not supporting their illegal ICE raids is not the same thing as supporting weak borders.
I think the most obvious solution here to speed up the naturalization process and create strong anti-discrimination laws. Tons of businesses pay less than minimum wage to undocumented workers and that contributes to the social welfare costs. But those same workers still pay sales taxes and other taxes without receiving any of the benefits. Invest money into vetting and naturalizing them faster, take them citizens who work and pay taxes (and stop giving tax relief to the people who need it the least) and that sort of solves most of your issues.
First off, this is a strawman because you're describing things that Democrats don't actually want. Some want one, some want the other, but the consensus of the party is, frankly, neither (as you described them, at least).
Second, if a welfare state was funded almost entirely through taxes, which were collected via thorough regulations to ensure minimal amounts of concealment, and the expenditures of the welfare state were overseen well enough to ensure that the amount of fraud/waste/abuse was minimal, it could work. The tax rates would need to be adjusted appropriately (likely higher than we have now on almost everyone but especially the wealthy).
Third, if we were to adopt an open-borders policy, there's a 0% chance it would be full-on, "everyone can walk right over and get free stuff" policy. At best, it would be "the process for coming here is easier" but recent immigrants and non-citizens would not qualify for free stuff. If there was any sort of way that they could get the free stuff, then it would be connected to them working and paying taxes like everyone else, thus essentially covering their withdrawals from this system.
So in short: what you're describing is not real, but it probably could work.
Unless we can increase the birth rate significantly, the only way the current iteration of the US welfare state is even remotely sustainable is through large scale immigration. The numbers just aren't there to close off legal immigration while our population dramatically ages over the next 40 years. Social security is already going to drain the trust fund in the next 5-8 years. If you completely closed the border, the current welfare state fails in less than a generation.
High encounters actually suggests the opposite of an open border and shows patrolling was happening and successful. Why would you think more encounter suggested less patrolling?
High encounters do show that agents are catching people who cross, but those massive surges under Biden really point to a breakdown in deterrence.Migrants kept coming in huge numbers because the policies. like catch. and-release(strike down by court)made them think they'd get to stay Trump's stricter rules meant way fewer attempts overall
Democrats don’t need to “admit” anything, because they don’t support open borders. I don’t think I’ve ever even heard a Democrat use the term open borders. Obama was notorious for deporting people. Whether you think that’s good or bad is a matter of interpretation. And just last year they tried to pass a Republican immigration bill before Trump told his minions to shoot it down.
I think Democrats are losing because of messaging and rhetoric more than anything. I don’t buy the idea that their policy positions are too left wing.
There is no such thing as an "open border", that's a mental image right wing populists all over Europe use as well. Most irregular migration to the US happens legally via planes and then paperwrok or other reasons prevent people from being considered legally in the US. Migrants, both regular and irregular are economically a net positive for the US. Irregulars creating more value than they recieve back from the "welfare state" (does the US even have anything that can be considered a welfare state?).
I have never heard a politician advocate for open borders. I say this as a person who believes that borders are a violation of human dignity simply by existing. There is no strong political movement for open borders. Democrats seem to believe that it isn't worth the effort or the optics to have a large scale removal operation. Even now, in which ICE isn't close to addressing the millions of undocumented people, their operation have created a sense of tension and violence in many cities that is not sustainable for a politician that wants to maintain power through democratic means. And beyond all of this, undocumented immigrants are not entitled to welfare benefits of any kind other that like school lunches.
These things are entirely compatible: just restrict the welfare benefits to people who are actually here under a long-term residential visa. This immediately solves most of the problems in your post.
The rest of the problems have nothing to do with welfare. If Texas busses tens of thousands of immigrants to NYC, that's not a welfare issue.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule A:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
"I think the democrats are dumb for doing things propaganda tells me they are doing but aren't actually doing, and let's face it, the propaganda isn't the problem"
Right. Democrats do not advocate for open borders. They want more immigration than the GOP does, but "more" does not mean "unlimited and without any checks of any kind."
This is a strawman.
At least for the US, we don’t live in a welfare state. So your example using New York and other cities is flawed. Yes, accepting a huge immigrant population without enough resources is bad for your overall population. But New York and Chicago etc are just cities.
Now imagine if we lived in a country where the wealthiest people who lived here were taxed a fair amount of help maintain social welfare and infrastructure. Imagine a country where the blue states that accept immigrants didn’t have subsidize red states that drive most of the fear mongering. Imagine a country that actually had an effective naturalization process.
The other issue here is you’re arguing weak borders but using asylum seekers as your example. I think you’re confusing two terms. Weak borders means not enforcing immigration laws but asylum seekers are abiding immigration laws. They are here legally. I don’t think democrats are for “weak borders.” That’s just a Republican talking point. Didn’t Obama and Biden have very high deportation records during their respective terms?
Republicans run on anti-any immigration at all (well, anti-brown people immigration) and not supporting their illegal ICE raids is not the same thing as supporting weak borders.
I think the most obvious solution here to speed up the naturalization process and create strong anti-discrimination laws. Tons of businesses pay less than minimum wage to undocumented workers and that contributes to the social welfare costs. But those same workers still pay sales taxes and other taxes without receiving any of the benefits. Invest money into vetting and naturalizing them faster, take them citizens who work and pay taxes (and stop giving tax relief to the people who need it the least) and that sort of solves most of your issues.
First off, this is a strawman because you're describing things that Democrats don't actually want. Some want one, some want the other, but the consensus of the party is, frankly, neither (as you described them, at least).
Second, if a welfare state was funded almost entirely through taxes, which were collected via thorough regulations to ensure minimal amounts of concealment, and the expenditures of the welfare state were overseen well enough to ensure that the amount of fraud/waste/abuse was minimal, it could work. The tax rates would need to be adjusted appropriately (likely higher than we have now on almost everyone but especially the wealthy).
Third, if we were to adopt an open-borders policy, there's a 0% chance it would be full-on, "everyone can walk right over and get free stuff" policy. At best, it would be "the process for coming here is easier" but recent immigrants and non-citizens would not qualify for free stuff. If there was any sort of way that they could get the free stuff, then it would be connected to them working and paying taxes like everyone else, thus essentially covering their withdrawals from this system.
So in short: what you're describing is not real, but it probably could work.
I question the premise. How can you have 3.2 million border encounters if the border is open?
Either 3.2 million people were intercepted or the border was open. It cant be both.
Unless we can increase the birth rate significantly, the only way the current iteration of the US welfare state is even remotely sustainable is through large scale immigration. The numbers just aren't there to close off legal immigration while our population dramatically ages over the next 40 years. Social security is already going to drain the trust fund in the next 5-8 years. If you completely closed the border, the current welfare state fails in less than a generation.
Democrats are not advocating for an open border.
Wanting immigration reform and being opposed to what ICE is doing does not mean you are advocating for weak or open borders.
As an independent, Biden's handling felt weak next to Trump's migrant numbers exploded, enforcement lagged. It's why immigration hurt Dems in '24.
Is this based on stats or feelings?
For example, how were his policies or numbers compared to Trumps first term?
Both stats and feeling. higher encounters under Biden created a strong sense of reduced enforcement compared to Trump's term
What stats are you referring to?
High encounters actually suggests the opposite of an open border and shows patrolling was happening and successful. Why would you think more encounter suggested less patrolling?
High encounters do show that agents are catching people who cross, but those massive surges under Biden really point to a breakdown in deterrence.Migrants kept coming in huge numbers because the policies. like catch. and-release(strike down by court)made them think they'd get to stay Trump's stricter rules meant way fewer attempts overall
Source for this.
Democrats don’t need to “admit” anything, because they don’t support open borders. I don’t think I’ve ever even heard a Democrat use the term open borders. Obama was notorious for deporting people. Whether you think that’s good or bad is a matter of interpretation. And just last year they tried to pass a Republican immigration bill before Trump told his minions to shoot it down.
I think Democrats are losing because of messaging and rhetoric more than anything. I don’t buy the idea that their policy positions are too left wing.
There is no such thing as an "open border", that's a mental image right wing populists all over Europe use as well. Most irregular migration to the US happens legally via planes and then paperwrok or other reasons prevent people from being considered legally in the US. Migrants, both regular and irregular are economically a net positive for the US. Irregulars creating more value than they recieve back from the "welfare state" (does the US even have anything that can be considered a welfare state?).
Which democratic open border policy are you referring to here?
The borders aren't open and nobody with power is asking for them to be opened.
I have never heard a politician advocate for open borders. I say this as a person who believes that borders are a violation of human dignity simply by existing. There is no strong political movement for open borders. Democrats seem to believe that it isn't worth the effort or the optics to have a large scale removal operation. Even now, in which ICE isn't close to addressing the millions of undocumented people, their operation have created a sense of tension and violence in many cities that is not sustainable for a politician that wants to maintain power through democratic means. And beyond all of this, undocumented immigrants are not entitled to welfare benefits of any kind other that like school lunches.
I have heard literally no Democrat ever advocate for open borders.
These things are entirely compatible: just restrict the welfare benefits to people who are actually here under a long-term residential visa. This immediately solves most of the problems in your post.
The rest of the problems have nothing to do with welfare. If Texas busses tens of thousands of immigrants to NYC, that's not a welfare issue.