I think it's rather the choice we are given at this moment in history. But I may be wrong.

If you abstract away any other problems and boil it down to environment, health and work protections on the one hand, and restriction of unlimited immigration from countries with very different sets of values no matter the sociological developments that will likely follow you can only choose one.

I just tried to summarize what we hear and see from voters in analyses as fairly as I could, not present my own opinion. If that did not work out, let me know.

But in this case you choose the one problem that appears bigger or makes you more angry probably.

▲

add-sub-mul-div 19 hours ago | parent [-]

You're giving something away by suggesting that a balanced framing is: (1) destruction of our world, health, and lower/middle classes vs. (2) brown people bypassing an insane bureaucracy that prevents us from effectively receiving the tired, poor, huddled masses that we explicitly invite on the country's figurative doormat. You can be against the latter, sure, but suggesting these sides are anything close to equal is a choice.

Do you think we're stupid here?

	▲	Herring 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I actually think he was telling the truth (from his pov). Conservatives see the world in a very us-vs-them fashion. Makes it very hard for them to even notice nuances like in-group enemies (nevermind actually deal with them). It sounds like an oxymoron. Democrats correctly understand that immigrants are out-group benefactors. But they have blind spots too. We all do.