Speaking of propaganda, do you have a link to the data behind those claims? It feels like “complete destruction” should make the news.

> Let’s see your immigrant crime stats.

https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrants+less+likely+to+co...

> Crime is at an all time low because liberal DAs

If you take out the outlier years of 2020-2022 caused by the pandemic, crime has been declining for more than 30 years. I don't know what kind of conspiracy theories about "liberal DAs" you're on about, this only became a talking point a few years ago, and wouldn't explain why crime dropped for multiple decades starting in the mid 1990s. The trend is also not restricted to areas with "liberal DAs".

It all comes back to women being treated as full people. Having a child is dangerous, expensive, and a major time commitment which mean that women who have other options are going to have fewer children later in life when they have the resources to support them. We also have much less demand for unskilled workers so even women who really want children are getting educated and establishing careers first rather than getting married at 18.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/is-the-us-birth-rate-decli...

That leaves really only two choices: pull a Ceaușescu and try to remove the choice, or improve all of the things which make people feel now is not the right time to have kids. Since the former choice is both immoral and self-defeating, that really flips the discussion to why the people who claim to want more children oppose universal healthcare, childcare, making housing more affordable, banning negative career impacts for mothers, addressing climate change, etc. There are many things which factor into an expensive multi-decade bet and you have to improve all of them to substantially shift the outcome.

Because of eroding worker rights and raise cost of living.

You need free time for kids and if the salaries are too low for a single income household a lot of people will end up opting out of having kids.

This isn't unique the the US. Basically every country with a whack work life balance is looking at population replacement problems.

The line is always going to be going up somewhere. I’d rather it be where I live than not.

No, I do not think immigration laws should exist. There is zero chance of 400 million people sleeping in my backyard.

Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category. He's "waiting to hear of alternatives that don't involve deporting illegal immigrants", and I have one: don't deport anyone.

What actual, concrete benefit do you see from deporting immigrants?

It's a false dilemma either way. "You are with ICE or you are pro-illegal immigration".

...and that's best case scenario, giving the benefit of the doubt.

> obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.

I don't agree that this is "obvious". Immigrants bring important social and cultural capital. Who do you think is building a lot of the infrastructure in the US? The people putting a strain on the system are actually the aging baby boomer generation.

I have many other reasons for supporting open immigration that are less transactional, but the suggestions that immigrants "strain" our infrastructure is incorrect.

[flagged]

Tons of young people either voted for Trump or didn't vote at all this time around.

Undoubtedly influenced by social media, they're now realizing that what they voted for was their own future's destruction and are now abandoning him in droves.

We'll see if it's too late or not.

Delete your social media, shit is poison.

That's the question, isn't it? Why not just do that? Who are you trying to keep out of the country, and for what end, and is that end best attained by removing people from the country who aren't the ones you are trying to keep out?

For instance, if you believe the border should be strict to keep out serial killers, what does that have to do with removing Korean car factory workers who aren't serial killers?

No horse either but here is an attempt (ignoring criminal record as you say): Opening the border and letting her rip is clearly not sustainable in the medium term. So you try to make it (reasonably) hard to get in incl. turning people away at the border.

Once they are in (incl illegally so) you concede you have lost on this instance. Now you admit that forcefully removing immigrants carries too high a cost (literally + damage in the communities you remove the immigrants from + your humanitarian image). So you don't.

Somehow that balance seems really hard to get right and edge cases (criminal record) matter.

Because we like second-class citizens because its easier to exploit their labor.

Buying into the narrative that any of this is about illegal immigrants is a red herring. Immigration is merely a pretext for enabling an unaccountable fascist police state using big data from the consumer surveillance industry to both keep enough people believing the regime's abject reality-insulting lies (the carrot), while extralegally punishing anybody who might be too effective at speaking out (the stick). This is painfully obvious as they move on to target US citizens - both the boots on the ground terror gangs, as well as the increasing political rhetoric about deporting citizens.

Another way to look at it: the native born are twice as likely to be arrested for violent and drug crimes.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG...

What percentage of illegal immigrants have committed violent crimes?

The stats are pretty clear. Based on DHS own numbers

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/number-deported-im...