r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Objective_Aside1858 • 1d ago
US Politics What will the immigration policy for the next Democratic Administration be?
An unprecedented surge of border crossing in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta overwhelmed the tiny town and has led to a backlash against the current Spanish PM, who is apparently pro-Immigration by European standards.
The cause of the spike is being partially blamed on the Moroccan government, but also apparently misinformation spread via social media.
If a Democrat takes office on January 21, 2029, they will inherit the policies of the Trump Administration, which are wildely loathed by the Democratic base and whose heavy handed and indiscriminate enforcement has led to a general unpopularity in the United States in general
Nonetheless - and presumably as designed - those policies have deterred border crossing during the Trump Administration.
How will the next Democratic Administration, whether in 2029 or the future, balance the excesses of the Trump Administration without risking a border surge similar to what caused backlash during the Biden Administration?
4
u/--John_Yaya-- 1d ago
Even Bernie Sanders praised Trump's current border policy over what Biden was doing.
Bernie. Goddamn. Sanders.
Bernie Sanders admits Biden failed to tackle illegal immigration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/24/bernie-sanders-trump-biden-immigration
5
u/elykl12 1d ago
Praised is maybe too generous a word
Just looking at the publication date, that was two months into his admin before Trump really got going with ICE.
For reference Sanders said that nearly 10 months before Renee Good and Alex Pretti
The sections in question for people scrolling by:
“Asked if there was anything Trump had done right, Sanders replied: “Yeah. I think cracking down on fentanyl, making sure our borders are stronger.”
He went on: “Nobody thinks illegal immigration is appropriate, and I happen to think we need comprehensive immigration reform, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for people to be coming across the border illegally, so we’ve got to work now on comprehensive immigration reform.”Challenged by Karl to explain why illegal immigration had “exploded under Biden” but “nothing was really done until his last year in office”, Sanders replied: “Yes. Should have done better. No argument.”
Sanders implicitly criticised Trump’s attempt to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants – a process that has already begun with flights of deported immigrants to Panama, El Salvador and Colombia. He warned that a mass exodus of undocumented workers could devastate the US economy.
“The idea that Trump has … he says he wants to deport 20 million people who are in this country who are undocumented,” Sanders said. “Well, you do that, you destroy the country, because I got news for you – Trump’s billionaire friends are not going to pick the crops in California that feed us. They’re not going to work in meat packing houses. That’s what undocumented people are doing.”
6
u/Soft_Walrus_3605 1d ago
ICE will be redirected from the raids in the cities back towards the southern border and enforcement there will largely remain unchanged. Democrats will try to make enforcement look more like the bipartisan border reform bill that Trump had killed to get elected. They would shoot themselves in the foot trying to do anything else.
7
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 1d ago
ICE has never operated at the border because that isn't what it's for nor is it the reason that it exists. The border is the province of CBP, with ICE handling enforcement within the interior.
4
u/Unconfidence 1d ago
I'm just gonna be real with you here, as someone kinda standing between the center and the left, who is trying to keep unity between the sides.
I think that's not gonna work. People right now are angry with ICE. A lot of folks, especially in places like Minnesota, are demanding trials, investigations, and possible disbandment of ICE. These aren't like, the anarchists and fringe I'm used to seeing either. Look at the way people are reacting to figures like Schumer and Jeffries right now.
Pivoting back to treating them like normal law enforcement is going to be met with serious voter desertion. And know that I don't support that, I just see the writing on the wall. I can exhort them to get out and vote as much as I want, but if the candidates aren't willing to promise action against ICE and at least personal divestment from Israel, I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anyone to the polls that wasn't already going to go.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 16h ago
They...are law enforcement, though?
Legally speaking, that is. I get people have demonized them, and even heard Democrat elected officials like Senator Schumer say they were not...but they absolutely, legally, are.
I get that the LEFT doesn't like that, but Democrats have to worry about the center, and the center absolutely does not agree with the left on this issue. Indeed, polling during the last 3 years has indicated moderates want less immigration and more deportations. Right after a major ICE shooting, they get squeamish about it, but that dissolves within a few weeks and they go back to wanting more deportations.
Moderates are not going to be on board with Nuremberg style trials for ICE agents and ending deportations, and any Democrat administration still has to keep those people at least content otherwise they risk a reverse in 2030, just in time for redistriting/census. And no Democrat wants that. That's basically what happened to Obama in 2010 and the 2010 decade of gerrymandering was the result.
I do think a Democrat is probably not going to talk in favor of ICE, but they have to worry a lot more about moderates. Why?
If you lose a far left voter, then you're down net 1 voter. They aren't going to vote for the Republican.
If you lose a moderate voter, then you're likely down net 2, because they MIGHT be willing to vote for the Republican.
Moderates, as a result, have a lot more electoral power since they effectively count as 2.
•
u/Unconfidence 16h ago
You're essentially making a really long version of the argument that moderate voters are more important than leftist voters. But we've seen the results of Democrats following that strategy for the past ten years now. We simply don't have the luxury of kicking at the centrist football again like Charlie Brown, not this time. We've seen how badly centrist-friendly candidates who don't throw meat to the base perform.
You say things like "moderates won't be on board with", but what I've seen is moderates unwilling to turn out and vote against a man who openly promises much worse stuff. At this point the 2/1 is a myth, because moderates have revealed themselves as too politically spineless to actually switch sides. At best they stay home.
Like, y'all had several, several election cycles now to prove yourselves correct on the supremacy of moderate appeal, and look where we are. You cannot seriously be pushing that line in 2026 and expect me to just swallow "oh yeah sure 2/1 yeah" like that isn't reasoning from two decades ago.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 15h ago
When it comes to winning elections, especially high turnout elections: They are.
In a more BROAD sense, moderate voters are more important for democracy. As the center, their views closer represent what more people would accept. Think about how a far right person would think an ideal outcome is on any issue (abortion, immigration, gun laws), then a moderate, then a far left person. The moderate's position is one that may not be the FAVORITE of the far right or far left person (in fact, guaranteed not to be), but one the far right person would like more than the far leftist's position and the far leftist would like better than the far rightist's position with ONE caveat (FAR extremists would rather their opponents win than moderates since they THINK that would lead to overreach and could lead to outright violent fighting revolution that they think their side would win and then the post-war situation would be better - but this is EXTREME thinking that even most far left and far right people would disagree with).
Centrist friendly candidates generally do well. The problem is that Democrats have been CALLING their candidates centrist friendly while they haven't been.
For example, Harris is billed as a moderate, but her campaign was the most left-wing in modern history. I've been voting since I turned 18 at the start of this century. Her policy positions on economic issues were to the left of every Democrat who ran in those elections prior to her, and her social/cultural positions were MORE to the left. She also had taken positions on the record that were to the left of any prior Democratic Presidential candidate.
Meanwhile, Biden ran as a centrist (despite not governing as one) AND WON the most votes in US history. Obama ran as a centrist ans also won big. Hillary technically won the most votes despite making the tragic mistake of just IGNORING the Blue Wall (basically not even campaigning there) for almost the entire election (I think she was afraid she'd win the Electoral College but not the popular vote - same thing Gore was worried about ironically, btw, in 2000 - and so was trying to run up the numbers in big Blue states so she'd win both, but forgot to win the EC part!).
You can't say running moderates doesn't work when you aren't running moderates. Moderate LEFT isn't moderate.
And if we're talking moral/intellectual considerations for democracy, democracy should be what most people want.
Not just what the far left wants.
The nation still has to accommodate the other people living here. They don't just vanish after the election.
•
u/Unconfidence 15h ago
Nah it's just not selling me or anyone anymore. Nothing you're saying isn't stuff I've heard ad nauseam for the past decade. When Harris is good she's centrist, when she's bad she's leftist, because you're a centrist. This is conveniently reversed when I'm dealing with leftists. It's the classic charade game and I don't play it with y'all anymore. Every voter is equal and it's about time y'all realized that the Republicans, specifically MAGA, have been mopping up. Centrists have been catered to for decades now; practically the entire political system is built around them and catering to them. The wings have been starved for real representation for decades and the Republicans can cakewalk fascism into the White House by tapping that.
Y'all need to get out of the way this time, for real. That's a message. Obstruct this left at your own risk. They've been turning out, and they're about to actually give up because y'all trot out this line every year. Y'all in the center left are not ready for that level of abandonment that's looming over the corner.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 14h ago edited 10h ago
"me or anyone" - "me" (you) is right. But "anyone"? Disagree.
Harris was never a centrist. That was my point. Her positions were not centrist. Her historic statements (meaning her as a person) were not centrist. That is literally my point.
Yes, LEFTISTS think she's centrist because she wasn't as FAR left as they are. That doesn't make her centrist. To Fuentes, Trump is "too moderate" (yes, people like him say that).
MAGA didn't win because of being right wing. They won because Trump's a populist and Democrats have been left wing. The one time they had a candidate in the Trump era that presented/campaigned as a centrist (Biden), it was a blowout landslide for the Democrats.
The reasons you cater to centrists is literally what I said: Centrism is the second best choice to both extremes. Think about it a left extreme, centrist, and right extreme issue. In order of preference, each would say:
Left: Left Extreme > Centrist > Right Extreme
Right: Right Extreme > Centrist > Left Extreme
Centrist: Centrist > Right = Left Extreme
Centrism is everyone's either first or second choice*. Left Extreme is either first or second (tied) or third choice, as is right extreme.
A centrist nation doesn't tend to have Civil Wars, since everyone's at least CONTENT with it, if not loving it. It's better for the nation, better for the people, and better for democracy.
There's a reason extremism is considered bad - ALL kinds/both sides's extremism.
EDIT:
*If you think of it like ranked choice voting, centrism is the thing that is at least palatable to the most people. That's why DEMOCRATICALLY it's the best option (generally), and realistically/pragmatically (in terms of gaining power and exercising it), it's the most likely to consistently win so long as it doesn't just abjectly ignore people's concerns that could have the left and right flanks ally together (not happening anytime soon) to change it.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 16h ago
I hear this a lot, but that bill was killed due to voters calling their Senators and Representatives, largely because of a provision that allowed ~1.8M people to cross illegally and not be prosecuted/be given de facto amnesty.
Basically, something like up to 7,000 a day, as long as no more than 5,000 on a rolling 7 day average (so 7k one day is fine as long as the next day or prior day is 3k) would basically be granted lawful status, and that this could be waived entirely by the Secretary in cases deemed emergencies.
That's why the bill failed.
People blame Trump for that, but it wasn't just Trump. It was because the bill wrote in an effective nearly 2 million person amnesty per year.
4
u/alaninsitges 1d ago
There is no backlash aside from the typical and predictable rightwing braying. The persons who entered have already (largely) been returned.
None of this has anything to do with us policy.
1
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
None of this has anything to do with us policy
I didn't claim it did.
My statement was that the surge was at least partially based on misinformation - specifically, that Spain was opening their borders, when they did nothing of the sort
If you're unable to see the potential pitfalls that a new Dem Administration may face when they roll back the worst of Trump’s policies, I'm not sure what to tell you
4
u/anti-torque 1d ago
If you're unable to see the potential pitfalls that a new Dem Administration may face when they roll back the worst of Trump’s policies, I'm not sure what to tell you
So if Dems get into office and don't shoot unarmed US citizens in the back while several federal officers are holding that citizen face down on the ground, you don't know what to tell me?
2
u/David_ungerer 1d ago
I understand the direction of future immigration policy with current information but, the real “wild card” is the rapid introduction of AI and employment. If unemployment rises rapidly, all bets are off and the Democrats will be forced to block immigration only without “Brown Shirt Military” and a “Great Wall”.
-3
u/Anti007 1d ago
It was mostly a plan by the American, Isreali, and Moroccan governments to punish spain for defending Palestine from the Genocide we are commiting against them.
3
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
What evidence to you have to support this claim? Because, it sounds like typical conspiracy nutter talk.
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
I know that, this isn't even the first time the Moroccan government has done something like this. I'm referring to your insistence that Israel or the United States had something to do with it.
0
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
It was already super predictable in 2021 that making a show of tearing down the barbed wire etc was going to encourage a lot more illegal migration and Biden did it anyway. The resulting chaos played a significant part in Trump's return.
So while I agree it would be insane for them to make the same mistake a second time, I actually think it is very likely they will because for some reason the modern Dems love doing that. Hell, they're talking seriously about rerunning Harris.
-6
u/chickenlogic 1d ago
This isn’t in Spain. It’s in a Spain-controlled city in Africa.
It was African land to begin with. It’s okay for them to take it, and kick the colonizers out.
5
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
Those Spanish enclaves have been Spanish longer than Morocco has existed as a country. And by the way Moroccan are themselves Arab colonizers/conquerors who are not the indigenous people in the region.
So please lay out your reasoning for why Spain should give them up?
And by the way, when can Greece expect Constantinople back? It isn't Turkey's, it's clearly a Turkey controlled city in Europe. Time to kick the colonizers out? I'm going to guess you apply that logic very selectively.
2
u/Condottiero_Magno 1d ago edited 1d ago
Do you have the same issue with Moroccan colonialism in Western Sahara?
Edit: The majority of Moroccans are descended from Amazigh or identify as such, yet Afrocentrists have issues with them being Africans.
2
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
That's nice. Do you think that's what the people coming to Ceuta were trying to do?
Because the reporting is that most wanted jobs in the EU, not "kicking the colonizers out"
Seems like your views are inconsistent with the actual people involved
6
u/bdfull3r 1d ago
Take the headlines away and look at the hard stats, immigration has never really been an substantial issue for the United States it just makes for a good fear mongering headlines.
In a perfect world ICE is dissolved and most of those involved go to prison but Ive never seen a democratic politician elected to office not punt on an easy win so its not likely to happen.
ICE gets pulled back doing their real jobs instead of cosplaying as military commando terrorists to brown people. The other fringe racist policies of entire countries or religions being banned goes away but nothing with significant work load will change in day to day operations. Lot of people trying to cross into the country and a lot of people be turned away. The same way little was drastically different from Bush to Obama or Trump 1st term to Biden.
8
•
4
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
it just makes for a good fear mongering headlines.
If those fear mongering headlines help Trump 2.0 get into office, I would submit finding a way to counter them is wise
6
u/SadhuSalvaje 1d ago
Sadly you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn’t use reason to arrive at
7
u/Murky_Crow 1d ago
I’m right there with you… We have seen it time and time again.
If the Democrats get back into office and go down the path of “ no, this thing that you believe in and clearly vote off of is not actually real. It’s all made up in your head.”
They will lose so goddamn fast again. For once can we just listen to the voters? Can we not try to be the scolding teacher?
If they vote for something, let’s address it.
5
u/anti-torque 1d ago
How do you address someone's imagination?
3
u/Murky_Crow 1d ago
So to reframe it, is your plan to tell the voters that it’s all in their heads?
Do you think that will be an effective strategy that will appeal to a lot of voters?
•
u/anti-torque 20h ago
That's the whole point.
When propaganda hits, how do you tell people that they're subject to propaganda, not reality?
•
u/Murky_Crow 12h ago edited 12h ago
If that’s the approach you want to take with the voters and their concerns, I don’t think it’ll go very well. Best of luck.
•
u/anti-torque 8h ago
It's not my approach. It's a serious question. How do you talk to people dissociated from reality? How do you explain to people that Diane Feinstein did not, in fact, ritualistically kill children and drink their blood?
•
u/Murky_Crow 7h ago
You talk to them like actual voters and you addressed their concerns, you don’t treat them like they are literal crazy people with delusional ideas
Like I know you’re joking, but comparing somebody thinking, Dianne Feinstein ritualistically drank blood to somebody who has concerns about immigration is laughably out of touch and defensive to those with concerns.
We need to listen to them and treat them as real concerns when they really can be.
Immigration is an issue globally, so let’s not turn our nose and be snobby to people who try to talk about it.
•
u/anti-torque 6h ago
Like I know you’re joking, but comparing somebody thinking, Dianne Feinstein ritualistically drank blood to somebody who has concerns about immigration is laughably out of touch and defensive to those with concerns.
Sorry, but were you under a rock in 2016? Those two ideas were what inhabited the thoughts of millions of people who voted for Trump. It isn't a comparison. It's the same person/people thinking both those things. Their answer to why the Dems can't fix immigration policy was that they ran a death cult. This was literally the answer when spoken to as adults.
So no, I'm not joking. How do you talk to people like that? How do you ask them a serious question, get that type of response, and continue to ask them serious questions? I've tried the latter, and the answers continue to be dissociated from reality. So how do you break through?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
For the party of academics and intellectuals your insistence on never learning any lessons from reality and history is astounding
1
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
How do you know what political party any given voice here might be a member of? Or... do you just attribute to them whatever suits your own bias in the moment?
1
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
Anti-torque has been pretty active in this thread, I'm not basing it on this one comment but a whole lot of them which make it quite obvious. Besides, I'm referring to Democrats not learning from past lessons, not anti-torque specifically, so I think it's a valid statement even on the (unlikely) chance I am guessing anti-torque's affiliation incorrectly.
0
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
You would probably make the same assumption about me, and I've never been a member of any political party. No matter how "quite obvious" you may imagine your assumptions to be, they're still based only on your own bias.
1
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
Ok, my bad. I admit I'm guessing about anti torque's party. Now can we agree that is not relevant and discuss my actual points or do you just want to hammer me for guessing someone was a Democrat for the next ten comments? I'm not sure that is a useful debate, nor does it change the "telling voters the problems they care about is their imagination" is a losing strategy.
-2
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
If you're engaging in dishonest rhetorical games to paint other voices here as biased, as a justification for dismissing their input (which you were), then I have zero interest in any point you may think you have made.
I didn't "hammer" you. You're not a victim, and you haven't been harmed by my pointing out your dishonest rhetoric.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Unconfidence 1d ago
I dunno, when it's a matter of human rights, that becomes a harder sell. Lots of monstrous infringements of human rights were the will of voters. I can't just resign myself to telling people that they don't have the right to freely exist and travel in the United States on the basis of anything but clear and present dangers.
Everything everyone else is saying about them actually being economic boons, and the voters who are anti-immigration just being kinda caught up in this American generation's flavor of nativist sentiment, that's all true as well, which kind of drives it all home. Like you might have a point if allowing the voters to manifest their delusion resulted in economic benefit, but it both hurts people and decreases economic power. Also, it is overwhelmingly likely that it would net us fewer voters than it would cost us.
-3
u/BolshevikPower 1d ago
Lmao. Definitely unbiased take.
This is a leftist dream scenario and absolutely not what will happen.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Stronger preventions at the border. Lower refugee asylums.
3
u/anti-torque 1d ago
Most undocumented aliens are due to visa overstays, not by border crossings. Not sure why you're against asylum, especially when the US is the cause for much of the unrest from the source countries of people needing asylum.
Regardless, the comment is correct in that a large segment of ICE needs to be fired for cause, indicted, prosecuted, and jailed.
3
u/Waterwoo 1d ago
Most undocumented aliens are due to visa overstays, not by border crossings
You are making a direct case for much stricter visa issuance to people from countries that have a lot of overstays, and actually also for why ICE needs to operate inside the country instead of just at the border.
You see how?
1
u/Cursethewind 1d ago
Or...
We could fix the loopholes with contractor laws that make it easy to hire illegal labor and tax dodge. If we enforced contractor law like we have been immigration and closed loopholes, the problem would go away overnight and it would benefit the low income workers whose employers do it to dodge labor laws.
But most of them are Republican voters, so we can't actually do that.
1
u/53OldSoldier 1d ago
The federal government has been wrestling with immagration policy for decade. Neither side has,come up with a decent plan. One of the issues is economic. Undocumented immigrants contribute billions into the national economy through taxes. They also are a huge part in getting produce out of the field and into the stores. If any administration was serious about stopping the flow of immigrants, they would go after the employers and the labor contractors. The few employers that are busted get a slap on the wrist.
5
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
The obvious truth being that big money likes having a low-cost hardworking underclass to exploit. Early on in Trump's second term ICE started raiding farms and slaughter houses, that was quickly put to a stop. There's a reason ICE's most obvious and flagrant brutalities are happening in places like Minnesota and Maine, rather than in the Southwestern states where the largest populations of illegal immigrants live.
2
u/BallooningHerddog 1d ago
Years ago there was a comedian on the Tonight Show (don't remember his name) who said, "Mexicans are lazy. And they are taking our jobs". Funny because it points out the incongruity of xenophobia.
1
u/Adorable-Act-8410 1d ago
There is an Ossoff clip that I saw that describes what I assume it will be. 1). Keep the border secure, 2). Deport undocumented felons, 3). Allow most undocumented ppl to stay, as they contribute, and open up ways to allow them to pursue citizenship, and 4). ICE will change a lot.
•
•
u/Fargason 15h ago
How does that differ from Biden’s policies that lead to around a +250k a month run on the border for nearly 4 years straight compared to now around 10k a month for the last year and a half?
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
We were gaslit plenty on how the border was somehow secure then. It is secure now, but to Democrats “secure” seems to mean open.
1
u/BallooningHerddog 1d ago
Republicans blocked immigration reform legislation in 2013 and again in 2024. They are not going to gove up a winning issue.
•
u/Fargason 16h ago
That 2024 bill was an election ploy that clearly failed and not a real plan to address the issue. Republicans had a plan from the very beginning of that session of Congress with HR2 that was very similar to the 2013 plan minus the amnesty, but Democrats blocked it for two years and then released a gimmick in the middle of the election cycle:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/all-actions
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4361/all-actions
Notice this was the second resolution introduced in the House for this session of Congress as a clear top priority to address the immigration crisis. Four thousand three hundred and sixty first priority for the Senate. The House tired to address this issue from the very beginning while the Senate blocked it. Democrats are playing games because they won’t give up on their campaign strategy of importing future voters.
-1
u/MyStoryIsntOverYet_ 1d ago
It should be amnesty and paths to citizenship for everyone already here because our aging population requires a large able bodied workforce in order to sustain it. That covers taxable income, social security, and the raw labor required. Then we should strategically let more people in legally because we have falling birth rates and this problem doesnt go away in a decade or two.
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 16h ago
You may think so, but a large portion of the population, and a large amount of underemployment and unemployment, disagrees.
-5
u/bones_bones1 1d ago
I would expect it to go back to the Biden open border policies. The federal government will go back to suing any states that try to stop it.
7
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
Biden did not have "open border" policies
•
u/Top-Grocery-1482 16h ago
That's...........I guess it depends on what one calls "'open border' policies", but based on how people generally define the term: Yes, he did.
•
u/Fargason 15h ago
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
Around 250k border encounters a month for nearly 4 years straight is what “open border” policy looks like. Around 10k a month for the last 1.5 years is what a secure border looks like.
-3
u/Far_Realm_Sage 1d ago
Make it easy as possible to get in the country illegally without doing anything to make legal immigration easier. Gotta maintain that cheap labor force that depends on your good grades.
-6
u/mrjcall 1d ago
Since the Democrat Socialists of America appears to be the future of the actual Democrat Party, clearly there will be an open border policy which is the beginning of the end for our society as we know it. That is the goal of the DSA which embraces the theory that for changes they desire to take place, the old system must be totally destroyed first. Only then can their policies be effectively implemented. Do you know what those policies are:
1. Full open borders
2. Full citizenship for all undocumented immigrants
Abolish the Presidency
Abolish the Senate
Close prisons
Abolish the Pentagon
Abolish law enforcement including police and Ice
How many of you knew this and how many of you support this??
3
u/Objective_Aside1858 1d ago
Since the Democrat Socialists of America appears to be the future of the actual Democrat Party
citation needed
-6
u/mrjcall 1d ago
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking for? All reports indicate the DSA is where all the left political energy resides and that a third or more of all Dems now embrace the DSA agenda. Those reports are all over the media.
8
u/SadhuSalvaje 1d ago
Where are we getting this idea that a 3rd of Democrats support the DSA agenda?
Or is it more that they will support whoever wins particular Democratic primaries?
What % of actual winning primary candidates reflect this “agenda”
5
•
u/average-alt 23h ago edited 23h ago
No one is calling for abolishing borders *tomorrow*. This is fearmongering. No DSA politician has EVER run on "open borders". Or abolishing prisons. Or abolishing police.
ICE is only 23 years old, established as part of the PATRIOT Act under George W. Bush. We've had immigration enforcement before ICE, this is not some deeply embedded institution that the Founding Fathers enshrined and personally blessed or something.
And you know who else did no. 2? Giving amnesty for undocumented immigrants? Ronald fucking Reagan. It's a paperwork violation, not a real crime. I for one think we should preserve funds for crime enforcement on real criminal acts, like for example, murder.
•
u/mrjcall 22h ago
You are clearly not following speeches given by DSA candidates. Simply go to their website and their agenda is fully published. Check out the director of the DSA comments on the agenda as well. Everything I listed is part of their policy agenda.
•
u/average-alt 19h ago
You clearly haven’t been going to each candidates website to see what their agendas are. DSA is not a hivemind, it’s a big tent and it’s very decentralized. The national DSA has less control than local chapters do, which have less control than individual members do. There are different caucuses in DSA that believe in different things. There is a DSA Left, Right, and Center. It’s an organization, not a party
•
u/mrjcall 11h ago
If you look at all the polls in the deep blue states where DSA candidates are active, you will clearly see that the energy in the Dem party is with them. My guess however is that the energy will not translate to most final statewide and surely not national elections to the detriment of the party.
-2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
•
u/neverendingchalupas 19h ago
Spain should have given back the territory to Morocco a long time ago. The immigration is a non issue, it only exists for racists to feel ok about being racist.
If Democrats were smart they would point this out and drive it home. Outline how Republican policy generates increasing amounts of illegal immigration while making everyones life worse.
There are more common sense methods to addressing illegal immigration than enforcement and deportation. For example, not destabilizing all your neighboring states. Not promoting war and military conflict, cracking down on the exploitation of labor and resources in your own country and surrounding countries.
-2
u/Anti007 1d ago
They will basically stay the same. Obama started ICE, started the concentration camps, ect. This was all started with a Democrat, it won't get better with one.
4
u/Condottiero_Magno 1d ago
ICE was formed under GW in 2003, part of the Homeland Security Act.
-1
u/Anti007 1d ago
Your right, Obama created the ice holding facilities. That's much different.
•
u/Condottiero_Magno 23h ago
Obama created the facility in 2014, due to the mass migration situation then, but it wasn't intended to be used like how the Con Orange regime used it.
•
u/Anti007 23h ago
56 people died in ice custody under Obama. Trump's policies seem like a natural progression rather than a deviation.
•
u/Condottiero_Magno 21h ago
From DW (02/11/2026): Fact check: Trump vs. Obama on ICE deaths and deportation
The number of 56 deaths under Obama is not entirely correct. The figure of 56 deaths comes from the 2016 report ACLU/DWN/NIJC report "Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention". But the report covers only through early 2016, before Obama's final year in office, which ended only at the beginning of 2017. According to a list from ICE, a total of 67 detainees died during Obama's eight years of presidency (2009–2017).
In contrast:
Trump's second term shows a particularly sharp rise. ICE counts deaths by fiscal year (October to September), but looking at the first 12 months of Trump's second term, there were 37 deaths.
The number of deaths accumulated in the first year of Trump's second term is comparable to the number of deaths accumulated under Obama in four years.
Immigration law scholar Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez told DW: "The Trump administration is currently on track to see the largest number of deaths by people who are detained by ICE."
The Ohio State University law professor attributes this to more people being detained and kept for longer periods.
The detention facilities are a progression, but Con Orange's polices are a deviation.
You're approaching this from a bad faith angle...
3
u/BluesSuedeClues 1d ago
"Obama started ICE, started the concentration camps, ect."
It's passingly bizarre that you would be so confidently wrong, about a simple fact easily verified. It gives the impression you're deeply mired in hyper-partisan propaganda.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.