The obvious difference is that the US, more or less by deliberate design, had a remarkably lax approach to visa overstays and illegal border crossings for decades. This resulted in a population of more than 10 million "unauthorized" residents.

Any policy that suddenly pulls the rug on them is notable precisely because we created the problem (or not-a-problem, depending on your leanings) in the first place.

▲

dmitrygr a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Any policy that suddenly pulls the rug on them is notable precisely because we created the problem

Are you saying that it is wrong to ever solve a problem quickly, if you are the one who created it?

	▲	array_key_first 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If other innocent people are collateral damage, then yes. Essentially the US "let this" happens and now wants to reverse course, but they're gonna be taking down a lot of good, hard working people with them. Also, this will negatively affect a TON of citizens, which always sucks ass even if you think immigration is evil.
	▲	estebank 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It depends on what problem and how you're "solving" it.

▲

JuniperMesos a day ago | parent | prev [-]

More accurately, half the country wants a deliberately lax approach to visa overstays and illegal border crossings, and the other half doesn't. Right now radicalized anti-immigrationists are in poltical power and they are going hard in the direction of anti-immigrant policies, under the expectation that the pro-immigration party might win the next election and attempt to reverse those policies.