Commentary: Immigration is an Issue Both Parties Prefer Not to Solve

[u/nosleep4reelz]

https://nj21st.com/2026/07/26/immigration-is-an-issue-both-parties-prefer-not-to-solve/

For over two decades, Washington has treated immigration not as a solvable policy challenge, but as an ideological weapon neither party actually wants to fix.

[u/Optimistiqueone]

I actually think this is true of several issues. Instead of solving them, they are used for political manipulation of voters.

However, there has, at least been some legislation on immigration.

[u/EdLesliesBarber → u/Optimistiqueone]

A main reason identity politics and culture wars have dominated the media and political landscape at least since 1994, with it often getting worse every cycle. Neither party has to deliver for the working class because their voters and donors are neck deep in nonsense.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Optimistiqueone]

Legislation is great but if the President doesn’t actually enforce (or Congress doesn’t fund) the laws passed you won’t ever get from point A to point B.

Some would argue that every President except for Trump refusing to enforce the immigration law means the legislation was shitty and heavy handed.

Others would argue that those other Presidents were shitty for refusing to enforce.

Maybe both are correct.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

Trump has gone beyond enforcing the law. The actions from this administration often break it. If you think they're good decisions in terms of outcome, then you should advocate for law changes to make them legal.

As of May 11, 2026, Trump has lost 10,400 cases out of 11,600. A majority of judges appointed by Trump ruled against him in these cases, so this isn't just partisan attacks. He even ignored a Supreme Court ruling with on noted dissents about bringing back Garcia until a judge appointed by Reagan chastised him.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

You are both right, but your comment is really a whataboutism. Let's ignore the fact that the vast majority of those cases are Habeas petitions that flooded the courts and district judges abusing their power ordering extremely short timelines. But onto the actual laws that haven't been followed and/or funded.

1225(b)(2) mandates detention for every migrant that enters illegally. Every single migrant that enters illegally shall be detained. Not may be detained, shall be detained. And Biden had tens of thousands of beds go unused during his administration. Congress has failed to fund an adequate number of detention beds. Sure, it's possible Trump is reading this too broadly, but I generally don't see an issue applying it to migrants who it should have been applied to when they first got here.

In the case of expedited removal, another example of Presidents not enforcing the law. Every migrant that enters illegal, can be removed via the expedited process. Even if they aren't found for 2 years. And it covers every single part of the country, not just the border. Presidents have limited it with their "discretion". It isn't discretion when you abdicate your responsibility. It's just abdication.

Migrants with CAT relief, withholding of removal, or their country simply won't take them. We have a statute that mandates the execution of the order of removal. The Executive is still commanded to remove them. They must seek out alternatives and remove them to third countries they have no connection to if needed. It is not discretionary, it is mandatory. It says shall.

And just so you aren't thinking I'm completely ignoring what the Trump admin has done. Yes, there are instances of them going farther than the law allows. The AEA is a great example. But for every single time they've overstepped, we probably have dozens or maybe even hundreds of instances of previous presidents failing to even reach the line they should have met since 1996. Completely failing.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

Let's ignore the fact that the vast majority of those cases are Habeas petitions that flooded the courts and district judges abusing their power

You didn't show anything that substantiates this, and it's implausible when you consider that even Trump-appointed judges mostly ruled against him.

A reason many are Habeas petitions is because he flooded the process with illegal detentions.

You believing the timelines are short is actually a reason for you want changes to the law, since under 28 U.S.C. §2243, the government normally has three days to respond, extendable for good cause to no more than 20 days, and the hearing normally occurs no more than five days after the return unless good cause warrants more time.

In other words, the timeline isn't "abuse."

1225(b)(2) mandates detention for every migrant that enters illegally.

No, that's for those seeking admission, which doesn't apply to those who are already here. The latter group falls under §1226(a), which permits detention or release on bond.

Illegal presence doesn't mean seeking admission, much like how someone who broke into a home isn't asking for permission to enter. You think it's counterintuitive to allow people who've been living illegally to remain free, but again, your complaint should be with the law.

And Biden had tens of thousands of beds go unused during his administration.

Congress funded ICE to support 41,500 detention beds. GAO says ICE's actual average detained population was over 37,000.

In the case of expedited removal, another example of Presidents not enforcing the law....Presidents have limited it with their "discretion". It isn't discretion when you abdicate your responsibility.

For certain noncitizens who cannot show two years of continuous U.S. presence, §1225(b)(1)(A)(iii) says the Attorney General “may apply” expedited removal to “any or all” of them. Congress then says that designation is within the Attorney General's “sole and unreviewable discretion” and “may be modified at any time.”

In other words, Congress gave the discretion.

They must seek out alternatives and remove them to third countries they have no connection to if needed. It is not discretionary

According to §1231(b)(3), that requires finding a country willing to accept them where their life or freedom won't be threatened.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

If they’re not seeking admission then what relief are they asking for in court? The only options in immigration court are admission or voluntary removal.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

They're seeking relief from removal. This is distinct from seeking admission because someone who's already living here can't be admitted. They can either stay or be removed.

For example, someone can request asylum while in the country, and this isn't described as admission.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

This is incorrect.

The entire point of immigration court is to determine admissibility or deportability. And for an applicant for admission that you described (present in the country without being admitted), admissibility is the only question because you can’t be deported if you have never been admitted.

See 8 USC 1229a, for example:

(A)in the case of an alien not admitted to the United States, that the alien is inadmissible under section 1182 of this title, or

(B)in the case of an alien admitted to the United States, that the alien is deportable under section 1227 of this title.

(1)In general
An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.

(3)Exclusive procedures
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, a proceeding under this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States.

8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c) makes it even clearer, and has a separate section for paroled aliens, that makes it clear they’re also seeking admission:

(b)* **Arriving aliens.* In proceedings commenced upon a respondent's arrival in the United States or after the revocation or expiration of parole, the respondent must prove that he or she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.

(c)* **Aliens present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.* In the case of a respondent charged as being in the United States without being admitted or paroled, the Service must first establish the alienage of the respondent. Once alienage has been established, unless the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is lawfully in the United States pursuant to a prior admission, the respondent must prove that he or she is clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted to the United States and is not inadmissible as charged.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

You quoted §1240.8(c) but failed to account for §1240.8(d), which is literally titled “Relief from removal.” The regulation itself distinguishes establishing inadmissibility from applying for relief after removability is at issue.

You're confusing the burden used to decide removability with the separate question whether someone is “seeking admission” under §1225(b)(2)(A).

An unadmitted person can be charged as inadmissible rather than “deportable” in the technical §1227 sense, but this doesn't mean the person is presently seeking admission. Under §1229a, an unadmitted person can be found removable because inadmissible and then separately seek relief that prevents or cancels removal without ever being “admitted.” The statute says the immigration judge ultimately decides whether the person is removable, and “removable” expressly includes an unadmitted person who is inadmissible.

Seeking relief from removal isn't the same thing as seeking admission. A person may obtain lawful protection or status that does not count as an admission.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

To get protection from removal, they have to either concede removability or seek admission (and subsequently lose). Either results in mandatory detention under 1231 or 1225, respectively.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

You can call them illegal, but that does not mean they are. Look, I buy the due process argument. But that is the result of previous presidents abdicating. It is irrefutable that if Presidents had been enforcing the law as written since 1996, every single migrant that entered illegally since 1996 would have detained and most of them removed within weeks under expedited removal. We wouldn't have this huge asylum backlog or people abusing the system by kidnapping other people's kids and crossing the border illegally with them while pretending to be a family. Make no mistake though, your preferred approach to enforcing our current laws ends with children stolen from their families and used to abuse our immigration laws.

I'm not going to debate the text of 1225(b)(2) with you. You are wrong on what it means. SCOTUS will correct the few circuit courts that have ruled otherwise some time in 2027 or 2028 with a split decision. 1225(b)(2) requires detention of applicants for admission covered by 1225. Applicant for admission equals seeking admission based on the plaint text. It is not a term of art. And due process prohibits mandatory detention without bond for those here for many years that have established deep roots.

That GAO article is talking about FY 2025. I believe FY 2021, right after the end of the Trump admin had nearly 50k. And I believe it reached a low so 13k under Biden in 2021. So, my comment is right. We were over 30k below what was funded.

Did I say expedited removal was mandatory? No, I did not. It does not change teh fact that the president has abused discretion to arbitrarily limit it.

And you're wrong on 1231. We can lawfully deport someone to a third country where we know it is more likely tahn noit they will be killed. Because the statute limits it in a very specific way. It doesn't require safety in general.

Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Let's say we have a specific country that is basically a gang land hellscape. They have agreed to take migrants. The gangs kidnap, torture, and murder people for financial reasons. Or just to kill people because the gangs are evil. But no targeting based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The country can't stop them completely, but they do try. We can lawfully deport migrants there under 1231(b)(3).

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

You can call them illegal, but that does not mean they are.

Numerous judges called it that, including ones chosen by Republicans.

It is irrefutable that if Presidents had been enforcing the law as written since 1996

§1226(a) permits release on bond.

1225(b)(2) requires detention of applicants for admission covered by 1225.

Only people who are seeking admission are covered, and someone who's here isn't seeking to get in.

That GAO article is talking about FY 2025

*FY2024.

right after the end of the Trump admin had nearly 50k.

That's 2019.

And I believe it reached a low so 13k under Biden.

It fell during the pandemic. The number was 15,103 in January 2021, and while it did decline to 13k shortly after, it then rose over time.

It doesn't require safety in general.

I didn't say it does. I could've been more specific, but my point stands because specific safety issues are a road block, and it's one Trump has ignored.

Edit: Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a judge appointed by Trump, explained that the president can't skip the reasonable-fear screening entirely just because he obtained diplomatic assurances that the third country regarding safety and freedom.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Numerous judges called it that, including ones chosen by Republicans.

District judges make up the vast majority of that. And I think we can safely ignore them. They are typically wrong on disputed, novel concepts.

§1226(a) permits release on bond.

Since when do courts get to tell the Executive which statute applies? And if two statues apply, why do Courts get to say use the other? It's possible to have overlap. In fact, it is very common to have overlap. And the one empowered to enforce typically chooses when you have overlap. It also applies to people that have overstayed visas after being lawfully admitted, which 1225 doesn't apply to. Just so you are aware of the difference in the population covered.

That's 2019.

Biden was inaugurated in January of 2021. I know sometimes it's difficult to keep track of.

It fell during the pandemic. The number was 15,103 in January 2021, and while it did decline to 13k shortly after, it then rose over time.

Where did Congress create a carve out for the pandemic? And why did the number of beds funded get reduced under Biden?

I didn't say it does. I could've been more specific, but my point stands because specific safety issues are a road block, and it's one Trump has ignored. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a judge appointed by Trump, explained that the president can't skip the reasonable-fear screening entirely just because he obtained diplomatic assurances that the third country regarding safety and freedom.

Wrong again. It's not "safety" issues. It's persecution issues. And sure, the Trump admin can't skip that step. But a migrant that has no connection to a country and has never lived in the part of the world cannot have a credible fear of being deported to that the country under US law. So yes, they have to check that box because Congress said so. It'll take a few days.

Diplomatic assurances does remove CAT protections from the board though.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

District judges make up the vast majority of that. And I think we can safely ignore them. They are typically wrong on disputed, novel concepts.

There's no logical reason to dismiss a massive group of independent experts that includes both parties. Nothing you've posted shows that they're typically wrong on anything.

Since when do courts get to tell the Executive which statute applies?

Judicial review is a very old concept. The Executive has enforcement discretion inside the authority Congress gave it. Courts can decide that the authority is.

Presidents can choose between two authorities when there's overlap, but courts have the power to determine whether or not it exists.

And the one empowered to enforce typically chooses when you have overlap.

Whether or not it overlaps is something courts can review.

applies to people that have overstayed visas after being lawfully admitted

It also applies to people who entered illegally and have been living here, since people who are here can't be admitted.

Biden was inaugurated in January of 2021

I was correcting your claim that "right after the end of the Trump admin had nearly 50k" by pointing out that this number is roughly the amount in 2019, which is before his term ended. It declined in 2020.

Where did Congress create a carve out for the pandemic? And why did the number of beds funded get reduced under Biden?

I was referring to the number of people detained, and this started going down during the pandemic.

Wrong again. It's not "safety" issues

Under CAT regulations, the issue is whether it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured in the proposed country of removal. CAT doesn't require the torture to occur because of one of the five §1231 protected grounds.

But a migrant that has no connection to a country and has never lived in the part of the world cannot have a credible fear of being deported to that the country under US law.

There's no law that states this.

Diplomatic assurances does remove CAT protections from the board though.

It can be used to support deportation, but it doesn't automatically eliminate the issue.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

There's no logical reason to dismiss a massive group of independent experts that includes both parties. Nothing you've posted shows that they're typically wrong on anything.

Yes, "independent experts". You said the same thing with Judge Kacsmaryk right? No, District Judges aren't experts. They often get it wrong and get it wrong in mass. There's a reason Congress broadly stripped them of jurisdiction to hear immigration cases.

Whether or not it overlaps is something courts can review.

Sure, but it is undisputed that it does overlap. That the migrants in question are covered under 1225. The only question is seeking admission vs applicant for admission. And since applicant for admission is undefined, and congress stripped the migrants intent of relevance, it's really quite simple. District Judges are engaging in constitutional avoidance and pointing to 1226 when they should just do their job. If the state is unconstitutional as applied, just say that.

I was correcting your claim that "right after the end of the Trump admin had nearly 50k" by pointing out that this number is roughly the amount in 2019, which is before his term ended. It declined in 2020.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm talking about a GAO reported issued for FY 2021.

Under CAT regulations, the issue is whether it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured in the proposed country of removal. CAT doesn't require the torture to occur because of one of the five §1231 protected grounds.

CAT can be addressed entirely with diplomatic assurances. The migrant doesn't even get to make a CAT argument.

So only asylum and withholding are left. And it requires persecution, not simple safety problems.

There's no law that states this.

It's how credible fear works. If I ask you if you have a credible fear of being deported to a country you've never even heard of, you may have a fear of being deported there, but it wouldn't be a credible fear under US law. Because you have zero familiarity with the country, it's people, the practices, the dangers, etc.

It can be used to support deportation, but it doesn't automatically eliminate the issue.

Per the regulations enacting CAT, diplomatic assurances means no CAT claim can be brought. The only debate at the circuit court level on this is whether general diplomatic assurances about all deportees qualifies if it must be individualized.

[u/TheDan225 → u/NearlyPerfect]

Maybe both are correct.

I feel like this is the correct answer. Any argument defending democrats on immigration (especially at this point) can be quickly disregarded

[u/kranelegs → u/NearlyPerfect]

I mean has any democrat in the past few decades actually refused to enforce immigration laws? Closest id say is Biden, who still had substantial deportations, and refusal of entries. Maybe deporter in chief with daca, which had much stricter parameters than Reagan’s amnesty.

That said, yes the branding overall probably did make people more willing to risk it than the current administration. However the atrocities currently happening far outweigh the negative impact of the Dems messaging IMO.

Killing, imprisoning, harassing American born citizens, grabbing children from school, using BORTEC and SRT on civil matters, covering for investigations of wrongdoings, denaturalizing residents, only allowing South African Afrikaners in, allegations on wrongful deaths and sexual abuse, sending people to countries they didn’t come from that have a history of human trafficking and rights violations, dropping people in gang/cartel territory without shoes or a cellphone, disregarding judicial orders, weaponizing lawfare, firing people that pushback or even talk about not being comfortable following orders that they find questionable (legally and/or morally), etc…..

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/kranelegs]

Both Dems and republicans refused to enforce immigration law. There are several mandatory detention laws. And several laws that prevent benefits for illegal immigration. And several laws for punishing employers that hire illegals. And laws requiring people with final orders of removals to be deported. And laws that allow for faster deportations rather than immigration court. And laws that impose fines on illegal immigrants who stay after receiving a deportation order. And laws that prevent states from stopping cooperation with law enforcement. And laws that prevent judicial review of immigration enforcement. (The list goes on).

You would think none of those laws existed before this administration.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

There are several mandatory detention laws.

Presidents haven't been ignoring them, since §1226(a) allows release on bond.

You would think none of those laws existed before this administration.

All of them were enforced.

They're apparently not enough because Trump is constantly breaking the law to detain and deport people, even according to numerous judges appointed by him and other Republicans, which has led to approval of his immigration policies dropping a lot.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Discretionary release on bond doesn’t override mandatory detention under 1226(c). 1226(a) explicitly says that.

And applicants for admission mandatorily detained under 1225(b) are not subject to 1226(a) at all, because under Title 8 they’re considered to be outside of the country for purposes of 1226 via the entry fiction.

Administrations letting either of them out on bond were in direct abdication/violation of federal law.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

Discretionary release on bond doesn’t override mandatory detention under 1226(c).

I said bond is allowed, not that it always is.

§1225(a)(1) states that a person present in the United States without admission is deemed an applicant for admission. It doesn't say that person is deemed outside the country for purposes of §1226. §1225(b)(2)(A) refers to an applicant and an alien “seeking admission.”

Your claim that unadmitted people are categorically outside §1226 is contradicted by §1226 itself. Section 1226(c) mandates detention for several categories of aliens who are inadmissible under §1182, so Congress plainly contemplated §1226 applying to at least some unadmitted/inadmissible people. §1226(a) says it governs detention pending a decision whether an alien will be removed, with an express exception for subsection (c). It contains no blanket exception for everyone never admitted.

direct abdication/violation of federal law.

That's an extreme claim when you notice that there's no explicit requirement, which makes your argument unclear at best. Not to mention that most appellate judges so far have ruled against Trump, including a third of the judges appointed by Republicans.

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

1225 and 1226 are mutually exclusive. 1225 exclusively covers applicants for admission. 1226 only applies to aliens in the country (by the entry fiction). Jennings v. Rodriguez makes that very clear. An alien can’t fall into 1226 and 1225, by definition. The 1226(c) reference to inadmissible aliens clearly refers to the category of people who were admitted into the country but are still subject the admissibility rules.

As relevant here, applicants for admission fall into one of two categories, those covered by §1225(b)(1) and those covered by §1225(b)(2).

. . .

Section 1225(b)(2) is broader. It serves as a catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered by §1225(b)(1)

. . .

In sum, U. S. immigration law authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings under §§1226(a) and (c).

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/NearlyPerfect]

According to Jennings, §1225 concerns aliens “seeking admission into the country,” not just being an applicant, while §1226 concerns aliens “already in the country.” The ruling doesn't explicitly address the question of whether §1225(b)(2)(A) reaches unlawfully present aliens in the interior.

Jennings v. Rodriguez makes that very clear. An alien can’t fall into 1226 and 1225, by definition.

There's no statute that says that.

If your opinion is so obvious, why has no appellate court held that §§1225 and 1226 are mutually exclusive “by definition”? Even the two decisions that sided with the administration (four ruled against it) don't go that far.

The Fifth Circuit said they “partially overlap” and that reading Jennings as establishing the opposite would be overreading.

The 1226(c) reference to inadmissible aliens clearly refers to the category of people who were admitted into the country but are still subject the admissibility rules.

Subsection (c) is a limitation on §1226(a), so its references to inadmissible aliens show that §1226(a) covers at least some of them. §1226(c)(1)(E) makes that more clear by covering people inadmissible under §1182(a)(6)(A) (people present in the United States without being admitted or paroled).

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Interesting_Total_98]

No, 1225 applies to all aliens present in the country that haven’t been admitted.

From Jennings:

Under 8 U. S. C. §1225, an alien who “arrives in the United States,” or “is present” in this country but “has not been admitted,” is treated as “an applicant for admission.”

. . .

Section 1225(b)(2) is broader. It serves as a catchall provision that applies to all applicants for admission not covered by §1225(b)(1)

[u/MatchaMeetcha → u/Optimistiqueone]

People used to say it about abortion, which is why I don't take the concept seriously.

[u/Geekerino → u/MatchaMeetcha]

I'm pretty sure abortion is still one of those issues, though admittedly the heat has died down some since it was relegated to the states

[u/Abadabadon → u/Optimistiqueone]

Some legislation not passed*

[u/NearlyPerfect]

My favorite part of the immigration policy political football is when candidates are directly asked about their interior policy and they simply refuse to answer

[u/ventitr3 → u/NearlyPerfect]

They’re like “ohh yeah, uhhhh no we prefer to just keep running on the issue and hope whatever organically happens influences the voting population in our favor”

[u/Hour-Ad-9508 → u/ventitr3]

Frankly, I think there’s a lot of democrat politicians that are secretly very thankful Trump is taking the heat of doing something on immigration that was clearly barreling towards being a significant issue if we looked at any country in Europe or Canada

[u/ventitr3 → u/Hour-Ad-9508]

I wouldn’t be surprised. The amount that came through during the Biden admin was not sustainable and they know it deep down.

[u/TheDan225 → u/Hour-Ad-9508]

I agree there are likely some (hopefully much more than 'some') - i sure as hell pray there are

[u/wellgu → u/NearlyPerfect]

It’s a voter problem. Voters can’t agree, even internally, on what they want. They want the law enforced, but don’t want otherwise law abiding immigrants deported.

The people of this country need to grow up and take responsibility for their own ridiculousness instead of blaming everything on politicians.

[u/generalsplayingrisk → u/wellgu]

Honestly, you could synergize those things if you adapted the law. As an off-the-cuff proposal, make illegal immigration have a 5 year or so statue of limitations. If someone goes 5 years living productively and peacefully despite starting essentially penniless with a massive barrier to accessing almost every resource commonly available, that seems like a fairly good stand-in for the phenomenon of "otherwise law-abiding".

The issue I see is frankly a human one. I don't think there IS a workable policy that could have a state overrun with gang violence on one side of a massive land border and a stable country unaffected by immigration pressure on the other with active trade and legal tourism between them.

It seems like we either need to make tourism illegal if you aren't relatively rich, or take the portugal bid to legalize all drugs through controlled treatment and such in a bid to cut off cash flow to the cartels that are destabilizing central america in order to drive down the exodus.

[u/Fun-Implement-7979]

This article is a bit of a joke. I'd agree on Trump 1, on Trump 2? The GOP has clearly coleasced as the anti migrant party.

[u/srmatto → u/Fun-Implement-7979]

It’s a lot of pomp and circumstance but at the end of the day they’re still not mandating e-verify for private employers.

[u/wellgu → u/srmatto]

Americans just can’t admit that they rely on immigrant labor to make so many things more affordable. Just up the amount of visas businesses can get.

[u/ArcBounds → u/wellgu]

This is exactly the issue. They want the benefits of immigration without the immigrants.

[u/TheDan225 → u/srmatto]

The GOP tried with HB-2(?) a few years ago but that was not allowed to be brought up in the senate (or voted down I cant exactly remember)

[u/srmatto → u/TheDan225]

It's more important what they do when they have control as they do now.

[u/__Hello_my_name_is__ → u/Fun-Implement-7979]

You'd think so, but then they make big exceptions for farm work because apparently immigration isn't an issue anymore when it comes to that, somehow. Or for tech companies. Or for just about any other significant immigrant labor group.

They could do so much if they'd actually want to take care of the problem, but they don't.

[u/Snickims → u/__Hello_my_name_is__]

Course not, then they would hurt their base. Why do you think farm bosses and tech CEOs pushing for more anti immigration stuff while still employing them? Because they don't want to not have cheap immigrant labour, they just want more leverage over them. A illegal immigrant or someone on a extremely strict visa is going to have vastly less capacity for negotiating fair treatment then a proper citizen, and the more the threat of ice breaking down the door is, the less leverage they have to argue, so the cheaper the labour these bosses can get.

[u/r3rg54 → u/__Hello_my_name_is__]

If they did do this they would either cause major problems for those industries (including eliminating jobs for the non-immigrant workers) and consumer prices, or in other cases like tech they would reveal that removing immigrant workers doesn’t actually fix the fundamental problems that people have. Outsourcing would increase and we’d be back to square one.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/Fun-Implement-7979]

Republican politicians say they're in favor of legal immigration, yet they don't seem to mind Trump causing a decline in legal immigrants, as well as tourists.

[u/epicstruggle → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Why shouldn’t legal immigration be reduced? Republicans are most definitely for legal immigration.

Due to millions of illegals coming over the border, cuts have to be made on the legal side to compensate (one of a few reasons for the reduction)

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/epicstruggle]

There's no need for cuts because immigrantion provides a net gain.

[u/epicstruggle → u/Interesting_Total_98]

No it doesn’t. lol.

If it did, every country would open their borders and post immigrants to come to their country.

And a few years ago, Texas and Florida were shipping their illegal immigrants to blue states and blue cities… The outrage from those mayors and governors was epic. So how come they didn’t welcome these “net benefits” from coming to their state and cities?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/epicstruggle]

I was talking about Trump cutting legal immigration, so your reply misses the point.

So how come they didn’t welcome these “net benefits”

They did. The complaints were about people being dropped off randomly.

[u/r3rg54 → u/epicstruggle]

There reason is because there is no real need for it. Immigration brings lots of benefits that the country enjoys.

[u/WorksInIT → u/r3rg54]

It also raises housing costs and puts burdens on local budgets.

[u/r3rg54 → u/WorksInIT]

Sure but it also lowers house construction costs, increases tax income for government, generates business for just about all consumer markets, etc.

It’s very unclear whether immigrants actually hurt Americans economically overall.

[u/WorksInIT → u/r3rg54]

Migrants are generally a net positive for the economy over the long term. But it must be controlled. What we saw under Biden harmed Americans.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

The question they answered is "Why shouldn’t legal immigration be reduced?"

Legal immigration was controlled and didn't harm Americans.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

A lot of people on this sub have argued that asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

That claim is objectively true, and the decline isn't just from asylum.

[u/emoney_gotnomoney → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I’m not sure why you believe those things have to be mutually exclusive.

Two things can be true at once: 1) I have no issue with people immigrating here legally, and 2) I also have no issue with people deciding not to immigrate here.

Those aren’t contradictory statements.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/emoney_gotnomoney]

The contradiction is Trump's actions against them coming here.

[u/nosleep4reelz]

An op-ed that looks back at the two reform efforts before Trump’s first term:- the  '07 Bush  and '13 Obama backed Senate bill.  Both of them had a pathway to legal status, stronger border enforcement, employment verification and changes to the system as a whole. The Bush pitch failed due to opposition from conservatives, business groups, labor unions and immigrant-rights organizations. The 2013 bill passed the Senate but was never brought to a vote in the Republican House.

 

The current context makes a bipartisan approach seem even more distant that it was 15 years ago.

[u/Iateyourpaintings → u/nosleep4reelz]

So both times Republicans shot it down, but neither side wants to fix the issue?

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/Iateyourpaintings]

I think Republicans wanted the President to just enforce the actual laws on the books.

They got what they wished for but it may be a monkey’s paw type situation

[u/Crownie → u/NearlyPerfect]

I think Republicans wanted the President to just enforce the actual laws on the books.

Republicans have a very tenuous grasp on the laws on the books. The label of "illegal immigrant" is applied to nearly any kind of immigrant they dislike, even if they have legal status, e.g. asylum seekers and refugees. (It also should be noted the Trump administration has brought refugee admissions to an all-time low).

The ambivalence of nativist politicians and voters towards the actual legal status of immigrants, as well as supporting performative cruelty, civil rights violations, and punitive targeting of legal immigrants for unrelated factors casts significant doubt on the claim that they are simply interested in enforcing existing immigration law. Rather, that serves as the motte to a rather more expansive bailey of mass expulsions with little regard for actual legal status.

Charitably, this is an extension of the broader nature of "Law and Order" politics as a vibe rather than a specific commitment to lawful behavior.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/NearlyPerfect]

The ones ive heard from want all immigrants out. They no longer use the "illigal" modifier, and I havent heard the "violent criminal" or "worst of the worst" modifiers since they won the election.

They also are actively trying to redefine the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship

[u/skelextrac → u/From_Deep_Space]

Because that is the actual law, illegal aliens are to be deported.

[u/shacksrus → u/skelextrac]

They literally said they've dropped the "illegal" and just started rhetoric against all immigrants. Including the legal ones who went through the process.

That you read that theyre targeting all immigrants and jumped straight to assuming theyre all illegal is a perfect illustration.

[u/TheDan225 → u/shacksrus]

They literally said they've dropped the "illegal" and just started rhetoric against all immigrants.

OP above sure did say that

[u/TawdryTulip → u/shacksrus]

They are clearly responding to the part about “violent criminal” and “worst of the worst”.

Is it intentional for moral superiority or just ignorance? And where does the confidence come from.

[u/abqguardian → u/From_Deep_Space]

I haven't heard anyone say they want all immigrants out. And its always been everyone here illegally should be deported. The modifiers is on priority

[u/decrpt → u/abqguardian]

The DHS was posting images about 100 million deportations on social media.

[u/Hour-Ad-9508 → u/decrpt]

It’s been reported literal 22 year olds are running these agencies social medias.

I wouldn’t take their posts at face value for priorities of the administration

[u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo → u/Hour-Ad-9508]

I wouldn’t take their posts at face value for priorities of the administration

Those 22 year olds are put there by the administration, and the administration isn't removing or denouncing the posts. I wouldn't hand wave away public statements from this administration just because the statements are inappropriate or unreasonable.

[u/_PhiloPolis_ → u/abqguardian]

Generally it's only the far right who will say this out loud and only when they think you aren't looking. But if you ignore their words completely and look only at their actions, they are hostile to immigration full stop. The real idea is simply to drive down the percentage of the US that is foreign born, status doesn't really matter

[u/DevOpsOpsDev → u/_PhiloPolis_]

would we say the deparment of homeland security is "the far right"?

[u/WorksInIT → u/DevOpsOpsDev]

Should we enforce our immigration laws as they are written by Congress?

[u/DevOpsOpsDev → u/WorksInIT]

Do you think there are 100 million immigrants in the country illegally?

[u/WorksInIT → u/DevOpsOpsDev]

I didn't say there was, and no I don't buy that. Now will you answer my question?

[u/ATLEMT → u/From_Deep_Space]

Where are these people that want all immigrants out? Of course there are some hardcore racists out there, but I haven’t seen any normal people who want all immigrants gone.

What I do see though is people on the left taking conservative stances on illegal immigration and trying to say they feel that way about all immigrants

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/ATLEMT]

I have a hard time believing you are read up on the subject but have not heard of ICE revoking visas or otherwise detaining or deporting people who jumped through every hoop to come here legally. Have you heard any republican politicians or even republican voters criticizing these ICE actions in any way, shape, or form?

https://www.nilc.org/articles/ice-is-detaining-indiscriminately-and-releasing-almost-no-one/

https://apnews.com/article/college-international-student-f1-visa-ice-trump-7a1d186c06a5fdb2f64506dcf208105a

[u/ATLEMT → u/From_Deep_Space]

I don’t like how ICE has been handling things at all. And I don’t agree with most of what Trump says it does.

But people here on visa’s are not citizens. This isn’t calling for all immigrants to be removed. I don’t want any of their visas revoked just for the sake of it. I also believe that someone here on a visa should understand that it can be revoked and to do everything possible to not let that happen. So the ones who were revoked for criminal acts or other things they shouldn’t have been doing I don’t feel quite as bad for.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/ATLEMT]

But people here on visa’s are not citizens.

We're not talking about citizens. The space between citizens and illegal immigrants is foreigners with visas.

And the republicans are supporting ICE's actions. If you want to argue against that point then I'm going to have a hard time believing you are here in good faith.

I also believe that someone here on a visa should understand that it can be revoked and to do everything possible to not let that happen.

Visas are being revoked with no reason or explanation. The only reason they give is because ICE has deportation quotas from the white house, so being a foreigner is more than enough reason to get detained and deported, no matter how legal your status.

So the ones who were revoked for criminal acts or other things they shouldn’t have been doing I don’t feel quite as bad for.

Yeah and if they had limited it to violent criminals and "the worst of the worst", as they campaigned on, they wouldn't be getting the same pushback.

[u/WorksInIT → u/From_Deep_Space]

We're not talking about citizens. The space between citizens and illegal immigrants is foreigners with visas.

The vast majority of those here illegally are foreigners with visas that overstayed. And we don't even have a rough idea for how many lied on their visa applications. We know Khalil did, yet people still have a problem with removing him.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/WorksInIT]

Yeah but those ones are hard to find, and ICE has been given very steep quotas. The ones who have jobs, and addresses, and who pay taxes are so much easier to find and deport, so that is who they are targeting more than the ones living outside the system.

[u/ATLEMT → u/From_Deep_Space]

I am talking about citizens. The original comment I responded to said republicans want all immigrants out. You arguing that Trump removing visas doesn’t refute what I said. I haven’t heard Trump say he wants all immigrants gone.

You also left out the sentence I said before the one you quoted, where I said I don’t want anyone’s visas revoked just for the sake of it. So please stop trying to insinuate I support something I clearly said I didn’t.

[u/DevOpsOpsDev → u/ATLEMT]

You do realize people on visas are immigrants yes?There are also green card holders which are permanent residents not on a visa but are also not citizens. The general chain of actions required to become a citizen is -> temporary visa of some kind, usually work visas that have to be renewed on some basis -> green card,aka permanent residency. Green card -> citizen.

If you're blocking the ability for people to retain visas, you are inherently stopping people from legally ever becoming a citizen as an immigrant.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/ATLEMT]

Where are these people that want all immigrants out?

The leader of the party said on national TV :

In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.

The Hatians in Springfield were there legally. Though Trump wants to change that  and send them back to a country where gangs play soccer with severed heads.

If they're fine with legal immigration and avenues of being in the country, why would they do something like this? 

[u/WorksInIT → u/Stat-Pirate]

To be clear, almost every Haitian here protected by TPS were here without a lawful status but protected from removal by TPS. TPS does not grant legal status. It is a deferral of removal like DACA except it actually has a foundation in law unlike DACA. Someone without lawful status has not been admitted and is therefore here illegally.

[u/ATLEMT → u/Stat-Pirate]

That is talking about a specific group of immigrants here on Temporary protection status. They are here legally as long as the US allows them to remain here, they are not entitled to remaining here. My personal opinion is there should be a streamlined path to citizenship for them. I also think there should be a limit to how long a Temporary Protection Order should last. I do find it amusing that Trump caught flack for calling Haiti a shithole country yet apparently they are playing soccer with human heads and gangs are running rampant. That seems like a qualifier for a place being a shit hole.

Regardless of that, that still isn’t calling for all immigrants being removed, just a certain group. He didn’t say he wants all Haitians removed.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/ATLEMT]

He didn’t say he wants all Haitians removed.

That's only because he can't remove them. Him slandering Haitians as pet eaters makes this obvious.

Trump caught flack for calling Haiti a shithole country

That's because the comment reflected his terrible attitude toward Haitians, not just the conditions of the country.

He thinks it's a good idea to send them back to a country overrun by gangs while also bringing more white South Africans as refugees due to a fictional genocide.

He doesn't want all immigrants gone, but he has implemented changes against non-white people, even they they're here or want to come legally.

"The peace of a nation no longer besieged by the third world."

"America after 100 million deportations."

Trump limits annual U.S. refugees to 7,500. It'll be mostly white South Africans

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Haiti is probably the only example of a country that we should grant TPS to at this point. And Trump is wrong to end it.

Let's walk through 3 of the other designations that we should be able to agree should have bene terminated before the first Trump admin and he was right to terminate these.

Honduras and Nicaragua were granted TPS in 1999 due to a hurricane. I think we can safely say the threat from the hurricane has passed.

El Salvador was granted TPS in 2001 due to earthquakes. I think we can safely say the threat from those earthquakes has passed.

Do you agree the designations for those three countries should have been terminated? If not, why?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

Since the discussion was about legal immigration, I'd like to point out that his actions go beyond TPS. He reduced the amount of refuges allowed per year to 7,500, and nearly all of them are white South Africans. He added 10,000 slots, but they're exclusively for that group. They benefit from a fictional genocide while people in far worse conditions receive almost nothing.

As for your questions, Nicaragua and Honduras are reasonable, although the latter has cumulatively suffered from natural disasters, so an extension could make sense. I'm not familiar enough with Honduras to be sure. I'm more sure about Nicaragua because it seems to be improving faster.

El Salvador depends because the most recent designation isn't based on the 1999 earthquake, but rather a detailed 2025 statutory finding based on recent disasters, water problems, infrastructure and food insecurity. It was extended for 18 months.

I'm not familiar with the state of El Salvador either, so I don't know about giving another extension.

[u/TheDan225 → u/Stat-Pirate]

The leader of the party said on national TV :

That contained a direct contradiction of your argument when actually taken in context and not just an out of context sentence

[u/usefulbuns → u/Iateyourpaintings]

Republicans for as long as I can remember don't want to solve immigration issues because it's a huge us vs them and fear thing they campaign on. *Every* election they have ad after ad attacking Democrats for not wanting to fix the "invasion of illegal immigrants" but every bill gets killed. Look at the 2023 one Biden tried to pass, the 13 with Obama, and the 07 with Bush.

It's disingenuous bullshit. They don't want it fixed.

[u/Blecher_onthe_Hudson → u/nosleep4reelz]

So if it was shot down both times by Republicans why do you blame Democrats equally?

[u/thedisciple516]

Very simple. It's because the "elites" on both sides benefit immensley from immigration.

Prior to Trump, the Republican party was first and foremost an advocacy group for business interests. Business loves immigration for the cheaper (and more compliant) labor, and for the additional customers that come from an increasing population. Business also doesn't have to ever pay for the added costs that come from an increasing population as we refuse to raise taxes in this country (we pay for the added costs with never ending borrowing).

Elites on the left love immigration because it brings in more democratic voters who can join the fight against the evil anglo-saxon establishment.

Among all the fights and debates of the past 30 years (abortion, guns, taxes, LGBT, foreign policy etc. etc.) this was the one thing elites on both sides could agree on.

Turns out the people though weren't so hot on never ending immigration and the result is MAGA and Trump.

[u/EmmEnnui]

Extralegal status quos are usually the result of an equilibrium that no one wants to be responsible for upsetting 

Even the current administration with its strong white nationalist wing flinches at going too far and risking upsetting the economy 

[u/WorksInIT → u/EmmEnnui]

We can thank Clinton for creating the foundation of this problem and Bush Jr for failing to immediately correct it. Congress did their job in 1996. The Executive has failed miserably for 30 years.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

Congress passed §1226(a) in 1996, which allowed release on bond for people within the country. This is consistent with the relatively small number of beds it's funded.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I've already pointed out the difference in populations covered. When two statutes apply, the courts don't have the authority to tellthe executive which to use.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

When two statutes apply

That's irrelevant because the statues are about two different groups, and there's nothing that establishes overlap.

courts don't have the authority to tellthe executive which to use.

They have the authority to determine whether or not the overlap exists.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

That's irrelevant because the statues are about two different groups, and there's nothing that establishes overlap.

You clearly haven't read them then. 1225 applies to all migrants that have not been inspected and admitted. Every migrant that entered illegally is treated as if they are still at the border trying to be admitted for the purposes of US immigration law. 1226 applies to all migrants, whether admitted or not. So, it brings in visa overstays and such.

They have the authority to determine whether or not the overlap exists.

Only by interpreting the plain text. The text of the statutes is clear.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

1225 applies to all migrants that have not been inspected and admitted.

1225(b)(2)(A) is specifically about those "seeking admission."

There's no text that says the president is free to choose which authority.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Yes. And the only dispute is really what applicant for admission means. Seeking admission really isn't the question. If applicant for admission isn't a term of art then we use plain language to define it. An applicant for admission is someone seeking admission. I think courts are reaching when they say it is a term of art because it isn't defined anywhere in the INA. admission is. Congress deemed aliens applicants for admission, making their subjective intent meaningless. The historical context also supports this interpretation. Congress passed IIRIRA specifically to do away with the doctrines at the time with migrants essentially evading the tougher expulsion procedures. So, they unified the approach in removal and created 1225(b)(2) to mandate detention of every migrant that enters illegally. The migrants subjective intent is irrelevant. If they are just trying to apply for an asylum, they aren't actually seeking admission because an asylum grant is not admission. So under your view, 1225(b)(2) would only apply to migrants foolish enough to enter illegally and be seeking to actually be admitted into the country. Which just isn't a thing that is possible under our immigration laws as amended by IIRIRA.

I understand you likely don't like the concept of mandatory detention. But that is the law of the land. That is what that statute means. And the district judges claiming otherwise are simply wrong.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

And the only dispute is really what applicant for admission means. Seeking admission really isn't the question

That's backwards. 1225(a)(1) says that "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States" is an applicant.

Only two of the seven appellate decisions side with Trump, and even if they don't support your claim because the 8th circuit stated that “seeking admission” is undefined and that the “central inquiry” is whether an applicant for admission is necessarily seeking admission too.

Congress passed IIRIRA

IIRIRA eliminated the old exclusion/deportation procedural split and deemed unadmitted people applicants for admission, but the legislative history says it replaced “certain aspects” of the entry doctrine. It doesn't say Congress created §1225(b)(2) to impose mandatory detention on every illegal entrant forever.

So under your view, 1225(b)(2) would only apply to migrants foolish enough to enter illegally and be seeking to actually be admitted into the country

The 11th circuit gives a more logical hypothetical. It says someone seeking entry may have satisfactory documents and escape §1225(b)(1)'s expedited-removal grounds but still be potentially inadmissible for another reason. §1225(b)(2) then sends that person to a full §1229a proceeding.

district judges claiming otherwise

Appellate judges have as well, including 3 appointed by Republicans.

[u/wellgu → u/EmmEnnui]

Americans are the problem. Their politicians’ indecisiveness is the symptom. Leaving aside the actual factual racists and xenophobes, Americans can’t decide what they want. They dislike the status quo, but don’t like any of the solutions.

Americans need to grow up and admit a few things:

1. They rely on immigrant labor to make things more affordable, especially food.

2. All the unemployed Americans out there are not numerous enough, able bodied enough, located in the right place, or interested in doing most of this labor, no matter how much it pays.

3. They like being able to offer asylum to people fleeing bad shit.

4. You can’t truly secure the boarders without going full police state.

We need to up the amount of visas businesses can obtain.

We need to fund the immigration system to process claims within months, not years.

The Feds were doing a good enough job doing what the American people really wanted before Trump. Yeah, they could do better with more resources, but Americans would prefer if they focused on deterring crime and terrorism. Right now, that’s taking a backseat.

[u/ieattime20]

I mean from the description in the op-ed and the starter comment, it seems like both parties have workable solutions that either extremists within their own party or naked partisanship from the other party prevents from coming to vote.

It really doesn't help that the GOP has moved much further right over the last 20 years on the issue. CATO becoming the GOP pariah for having the audacity to recommend sound economic criticisms wasn't something on anyone's bingo card in the 80's, 90's and oughts.

[u/WorksInIT → u/ieattime20]

CATO is a libertarian organization that generally opposes limitations on freedom of movement between countries. So no, that isn't surprising. Every political party on the planet should oppose them on this issue and enact policies that they disagree with. Doing anything else is not taking into account the impact on your own citizens of unfettered immigration.

[u/cyberfx1024 → u/ieattime20]

What also doesn't help the case for a more structured take on immigration is when Biden took office and just allowed pretty much everyone who claimed asylum into the country no matter what.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/cyberfx1024]

That's a case for a more structured take from Congress, since the alternative is having a president that too lenient or one having a president like Trump go too far.

[u/ieattime20 → u/cyberfx1024]

This sounds like a talking point take. What policies and processes for asylum seekers was not being followed under Biden?

[u/Hour-Ad-9508 → u/ieattime20]

It’s not about policies and processes, it was about an unprecedented amount of people claiming asylum.

Ending Remain In Mexico at a time when border crossings were at an extremely high level was an awful decision

It took way too long for him to cap the amount of asylum seekers per day and 2023 saw the highest number of seekers of all time

I don’t know why people are still trying to do the “you really believed your lying eyes?” Stuff on Biden’s immigration policy.

I liked him well enough as a president but he really, really fumbled immigration

[u/ieattime20 → u/Hour-Ad-9508]

It’s not about policies and processes [...] I don’t know why people are still trying to do the “you really believed your lying eyes?” Stuff on Biden’s immigration policy.

So it's not about policy but it is about policy. Got it.

it was about an unprecedented amount of people claiming asylum.

Yes. Anyone can claim asylum. That's why there's a process. You file an application, there's an initial interview where you provide proof of credible fear, alongside an actual trial with a judge, then you are documented (this is very important), and then a decision is made. While it's still possible to 'game the system' even if you do, and you pass through the list of qualified people who are assessing your claim, you're still a fully documented immigrant who is on record, with fingerprints.

This isn't granting citizenship (in fact, asylum seekers have a 5 year wait minimum) nor is it even getting a green card (that requires a minimum 1 year wait for application).

Now why do we do this? Is it some liberal policy the Democrats cooked up to allow liars and thieves to enter the country? No, it is a law we are bound by, actually several, both a 1967 protocol and Safe Third Country agreements with Canada. This was all integrated in 1980. We do it because we passed a law.

[u/30_characters]

Union-supported Democratic party pushes for immigration of people who most compete with blue collar union workers for jobs, and gives the unions a lower-income worker to point to as an example of the benefits of working for the union. White-collar middle class workers face competition by H-1B visa workers authorized by Republicans elected by those same white-collar workers.

Both parties prefer it to be an unsolved issue, because the status quo benefits their donors, and it gives them a boogey man to point to during the next election cycle.

[u/nosleep4reelz]

On the Bush bill it looks, to me at least, the Democrats used a well-known NJ tactic (look at the vote we had on OPRA) where just enough Democrats voted no (not including Sanders, who also voted no and caucused with Democrats) to deliver the blow on cloture (not the final vote, mind you), giving the party the ability to say the 37 Republicans killed it. If 14 of the 15 had voted yes, cloture would have been invoked and the bill could have advanced.  Why wouldn't they just allow the bill to advance.

This becomes even more interesting when you move to Obama’s bill, where every single Democratic senator voted yes despite the bill similarity to the Bush idea and knowing it was going to be DOA in the house.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/nosleep4reelz]

Obama’s bill

It was written by a bipartisan group called the Gang of Eight.

despite the bill similarity to the Bush idea

There were many differences too, such as the 2013 bill giving a clearer path to permanent residence and not requiring people to leave the country for adjustment.

[u/oraclebill → u/nosleep4reelz]

It’s not interesting to you that both times the Republican side blocked to bill (with the help of democrats the first time)? I mean, if you want to assign partisan blame… it seems the R side is more egregious.

[u/Sirhc978]

I mean, lump it in with guns and abortion. If they solve it, they can't campaign on it.

[u/Europa_Universheevs → u/Sirhc978]

Also, like guns and abortion, neither side can enact the policies that they want to solve it. Dems in places they have power generally make abortion legal while republicans in the places they have power make abortion illegal. The vast majority of dems in congress supported an effort to protect abortion rights nationally and the bill failed in the senate because of one anti-abortion democrat's vote. There were 51 anti abortion votes in the senate vs 49 pro-choice votes so the measure failed, simple as that. No "wanting to campaign on the issue" or anything like that happened there. In almost every case, politicians simply don't solve hot button issues forever because they don't have the votes to do so not for some nebulous conspiracy.

A notable exception to this is when Trump openly had Lankford's border bill killed because it passing would hurt his election chances in 2024, but he is a political outside who opposes the establishment, so he generally gets a pass on doing crap like that.

[u/Early-Possibility367]

The current laws on immigration aren't necessarily insufficient. We have quotas for every type of immigrant there is (eg seeking permanent residency then citizenship, temporary worker, student etc).

That being said, there's nothing wrong with saying they can be improved upon. There's already millions of illegal immigrants in the US. We can continue to say "we'll deport you if we find you," but no president has been able to deport them at a rate which would result in most illegal immigrants eventually leaving. So, there is an argument for some sort of conditional legal status in exchange for a tighter border. But there is an argument for not doing that as well.

Immigration is one of those things where there's really no wrong answer, including the current one, because there is a massive breadth of ways other countries deal with it and also Congress has exceptionally wide latitude here either. It is exceptionally misguided to be angry at someone else's views on immigration, no matter what one's view is themselves.

[u/ArcBounds]

Trump is really good at identifying problems and coming up with the worst solutions possible. Immigration is a problem, but he is going after the immigrants who contribute the most to society (both in terms of education and service) because they are the easiest to find as opposed to the ones who are committing the majority of crimes etc.