> nationalist xenophobia the true most important priority for this administration

It is a little more complicated than that. It is what around 40% of American population want. (Then another 9.5% or so voted for Trump based on the price of eggs, the fact that the other candidate was a woman, and so on).

and possibly greatly reduced foreign investment for 3 years

“Other attorneys and I are hearing from companies in Asia and Europe who say, ‘Maybe we should hold off on big investments in the U.S. for at least three years.’”

What happens in six months?

What is the fascist lubricant you refer to?

Most of us only know knew fascism from history books. But I think the part that has been the most surprising is how stupid it is.

What you do not understand is due process and innocent until proven guilty. You don’t just abduct people on the streets and deport them to a random country without at least making sure that they don’t have a residence permit. Well, you don’t in a civilised country, anyway.

For me, open borders with easy documentation.

We survived for decades with basically just that. People could come up from mexico to work the fields in the summer and head back for the winter with basically no friction at the border.

The question to ask is "what is the border actually protecting"? When you start to drill in the reasons for a strong border, they all end up being fabricated problems.

"To stop drugs". Well, most drugs are either being manufactured in america or they are brought in by US citizens not smuggled across the border.

"To stop human trafficking". The ironic part here is the most common human trafficking happens because of the strong border. "We'll deport you" is used to keep workers abused. A weaker border gives workers much more bargaining power.

"To stop crime". Most crime is done by citizens of the US, not immigrants. And, again ironically, overly punitive borders does exactly the opposite of stopping crime. When someone that's undocumented can't talk to the police they are far less likely to be a witness for a crime or to report a crime. It further encourages gangs. A lot of gangs spring up because people can't go to the cops. That's part of the reason the mafia flourished. It's the reason militant organizations like the Black Panthers were formed.

"To create jobs". This one might be a wash. However, it has to be said that more people means a higher need for services in areas which can in fact create jobs.

"To avoid spending on services". This just doesn't happen outside of maybe emergency room care. Undocumented workers are FAR less likely to use any public services because they don't want to be deported. And so what if they do? Is it really such a bad thing if a non-citizen gets an education here? Don't we want more skilled and educated residence?

Let me put it in contexts of other countries. I as a kid, made a few trips to Canada and back. Back in the day you could do that without even presenting passports, it was kinda wild. Did Canada suddenly explode because of that easy border crossing? No, it was just a non-issue.

Similar things happen in the EU. The relaxed border controls for EU members hasn't resulted in chaos. It is, for the most part, a non-issue. People generally do not move, you still have most people born in whatever EU nation they are from staying there. The same would be true of the US.

I want enforcement of our immigration laws. ICE is deporting fewer illegal immigrants than Obama despite blowing Saudi Arabia’s military budget [1][2].

The entire endeavour is thoroughly corrupt, lawless and ineffective. It’s being run for TV, not for results.

So we get stupid spectacles like this from influencer ICE that make us, in the long run, trillions of dollars poorer, all while doing nothing to remove migrants much less gangs or cartels from our streets.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-budget-big-beautiful-b...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...

Someone once told me you can't understand US politics without understanding Linear Algebra.

End of the day each party needs certain to appease certain people in certain locations. Like any marketing team they segment their "customer" i.e. voter base[1], then rationalize actions to get there post hoc.

The general public depending on the news channel they wire their head into will have the same opinions.

Hence, it will unlikely to get a sensible answer by asking this in a forum. The actual answer is behind the scenes from political operatives who do the literal political calculus.

PS [1]: this is one reason identity politics is so appealing to them as it's logistically easy as it maps well to their customer segments

I'll take your question in good faith.

What I want is for people to be free to immigrate to the US if they are a) not known to be dangerous; and b) prepared to commit to the US and support it. That means I am more in favor of permanent immigrants than of migrant workers. In general there should be a low bar to clear to have a path to citizenship in the US. I think it makes sense to have various requirements that must be met along that path; I'd be fine with, for instance, laws that require people who are in that process to register, meet periodically with some official, pay an extra tax, etc. I also would support requiring immigrants to formally and effectively renounce any other citizenship upon receiving US citizenship.

But the goal should be to get people to actually move here, permanently, not just be here. That is what improves the country: people committing their hearts and souls and investing their lives in the place where they live. So many of the great immigrant stories from the past took this form. I find it ironic that so much rhetoric focuses on ways to legalize migrant labor, because that seems like exactly what we don't want.

Due. Process.

Just because someone isn't white and speaks english as a second language does not make them illegal or a criminal.

There used to be the presumption of innocence. This is no longer the case.

That's what I want. Simple rule of law in the us the way it is supposed to be.

What I would like:

First, ICE should be competent. There's a long history of them being the dumbest and most thug-like people to hold a badge. Compare this to the US Postal Inspectors, who are the most competent. Reform has long been needed from top to bottom. Consider that they basically use skin color as probable cause, which is enraging and lazy.

Second, the silly quotas focus on the wrong issue. The government, being incompetent, is meeting quota by voiding valid permission-to-stay because they know where those people live. They are manufacturing people to deport because they are not competent to find people who can be legally deported.

Third, this is a case of supply and demand. The system is focused on the supply side composed of desperate workers rather than demand side of people who hired them for personal profit. This is silly: come down hard on one meatpacking plant and you "solve" the problem of hundreds of illegal immigrants with a single criminal charge. Trying to stamp out the immigrants one-by-one is inefficient and unjust.

Lastly, this is pretty much all the fault of the Republican Party. George W Bush wanted to make a grand compromise where sufficient barriers to entry were erected in exchange for amnesty. The nativist wing of the Republican Party went apoplectic at compromise and killed any practical solution for decades. There will never be a solution so long as one side wants to deport law-abiding hardworking taxpayers whose parents brought them here as children.

This is not a serious question. Nobody, including the Koreans, has been been arguing that ICE should have just ignored it. The objections are twofold: that instead of raising the issue administratively with the company they just rolled in and arrested everyone in sight (including people with valid visas), and that they engaged in egregious human rights violations.

> What do you want for the USA? Completely open borders? Closed borders, but we don't enforce it very well? Something else?

The 2024 bipartisan border bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_b...) seemed like a good compromise to me. Of course, it wasn't brought to a vote by the house (for reasons that I won't elaborate on), so it's mostly a hypothetical.

And, if I had to choose between the two, I'm more supportive of the Biden era immigration policy than I am of the current Trump policy.

I want ICE to go after the drug traffickers and violent criminals they claimed were so common and such a problem. When drug trafficking and violent crime is completely stopped, then we can talk about the best way to handle skilled workers with minor paperwork errors.

Im an immigrant and I think it’s something that needs to be done.

The people responsible are the ones who let this happen. The solution is gonna be ugly no matter what.

too much immigration literally suppresses wages, all other arguments are secondary and not imp enough imo

I believe that I have the right as a human being to travel wherever I wish, or move to wherever I am the most happy. I don't believe the government should have the power to limit my right to travel. And I believe all people should have the same rights I do.

I think you do understand. But for the record, here's the boring centrist bougie liberal take on immigration policy:

1. If we have jobs available, people should be able to immigrate to do them.

2. Changes in enforcement policy should be just. If people are here doing jobs, we should assume that they have jobs worth doing. Norms are norms for a reason.

3. If someone breaks those rules, sure, arrest them and deport them. But not to a gulag in El Salvador.

People aren't mad about legitimate exercises of due process initiated by actual law enforcement agents acting within their normal mandates. People are mad that Miller's wannabe-SS abducted a mixed group of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors with visas, chained them together, and forced them to lick water out of dog bowls.

You're asking the wrong questions.

I care about being humane. I care about due process. I care about not assuming someone is an illegal immigrant just because they have darker skin or speak a language other than English. I care about people getting their time in front of a judge before they're flown off to some country that they may not have even set foot in before in their lives. I care about elected officials -- the people who represent me, regardless of whether or not I voted for them -- treating people like people, and not like animals.

To answer your questions, though, I do think we should have open-er borders. I think we should have easier paths to residency and citizenship, for people who want it. I'm sick of the isolationism and xenophobia. It's disgusting. It's unamerican.

>Serious question for people who oppose ICE enforcing immigration law:

People want ICE to enforce the immigration law without violating other laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately the current government and their supporters (and you seem to belong to that group) spin the insistence that ICE to not violate laws and the Constitution as the opposition to enforcement of the immigration law.

serious question: let's just shut down everything and see what could go wrong? let's also stop reading. get rekt

Serious answer — Bunny Colvin’s “Paper Bag” speech in The Wire — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2fV-_eiKxE

This nation does now and always has depended on immigrants. This recent ICE nonsense is capricious (no public plan), punitive (targets mostly political opponents), and illegal (targets skin color).

> I sincerely really don't understand.

This is utterly disingenuous. Do you really think "enforcing immigration laws" is what ICE is doing? Since when sending people to foreign countries without due process is a proper way to enforce laws?

I'll answer, but first I want your best guess.