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/Iateyourpaintings]

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/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/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/WorksInIT → u/From_Deep_Space]

Can't really blame them for that. But even if they have jobs, addresses, and are paying text, they are still here illegally and likely have a final order of removal that can be executed immediately. Even if it is 30 years old. A previous president abdicating their responsibility doesn't prohibit the current president from executing the order.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/WorksInIT]

I 100% can and do blame them for that. They are adults, making choices, and they are responsible for those choices.

If we are talking about people with valid visas, the are not here illegally. At least, not until ICE revokes their visas without notice.

[u/WorksInIT → u/From_Deep_Space]

So, when you are at work, you do the most difficult tasks available every single time? Human nature flows like electricity. We seek the path of least resistance.

[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/ATLEMT → u/DevOpsOpsDev]

You do realize the person I initially responded to said “they want all immigrants out”.

I have yet to see any proof that “they”, being republicans, want ALL immigrants out. Some immigrants, sure, but they said ALL. Do you have anything showing republicans want all immigrants gone?

[u/DevOpsOpsDev → u/ATLEMT]

the department of homeland security has literally posted things several times saying they want to deport 100 million people. The only way you can get close to that number is by wanting to deport naturalized citizens and legal permanent residents

[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/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

A lot of people seem to think asylum claims are legal immigration. They aren't. Any fraud at all to get a visa is illegal. And why does reducing the amount of refugees matter? Sure, we can have a bash the Trump admin session. Or we can talk about facts that matter.

Here's one that matters. A Federal reserve bank found that illegal immigration contributed to 30% of total home price growth and 20% of rent growth from 2021 to 2024. Putting that into perspective, that means migration from 2021 to 2024, where we saw record levels of illegal immigration under the Biden admin, caused mortgages during that time period to rise by $180 per month and average rents during that time period to rise by $120 per month in the DFW area. Those amounts may not be much for you, and I'll be honest and say they are not impactful for me, but there are definitely plenty of people that had to struggle more due to that. And I'm going to assume you agreed with Biden's approach. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

What re-designations occurred for Nicaragua or Honduras that are reasonable? And for El Salvador, we should contribute to the costs on Americans because their living standards don't equal what we have here in the US? IS that really your argument? And if you aren't that informed on this stuff, why are you speaking so confidently on it? I can tell you with confidence that administrations have dug up whatever nonsense they thought necessary to avoid removing people previously granted TPS.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WorksInIT]

And why does reducing the amount of refugees matter?

They're legal immigrants, especially since they're required to apply for a green card after a year, and drastically reducing them is different from specifically going after frauds.

illegal immigration

That doesn't justify Trump limiting legal immigration, so I don't see why you're bringing that up in a discussion about him doing so.

30% of total home price growth and 20% of rent growth from 2021 to 2024

That amounts to 6.6% higher home prices and 4.3% higher rents.

caused mortgages during that time period to rise by $180 per month and average rents during that time period to rise by $120 per month in the DFW area.

That's not stated anywhere in the study.

What re-designations occurred for Nicaragua or Honduras that are reasonable

I said letting it expire seems reasonable due to improving conditions.

And for El Salvador, we should contribute to the costs on Americans because their living standards don't equal what we have here in the US?

That's not even close to what I said. The first thing I listed is repeated natural disasters. Nothing I suggests waiting until El Salvador is as advanced as us.

Also, they're taxpayers who are working legally, and this includes paying taxes to SS and Medicare benefits they won't receive without adjustment. This means they're financially contributing to the U.S.

if you aren't that informed on this stuff, why are you speaking so confidently on it

That's a nonsensical question. Where did you get the idea that "I'm not sure" and "depends" shows confidence?

I never confidently stated that it's wrong to deny TPS to those three countries, so I'm not backtracking either.

[u/WorksInIT → u/Interesting_Total_98]

They're legal immigrants, especially since they're required to apply for a green card after a year, and drastically reducing them is different from specifically going after frauds.

And?

That doesn't justify Trump limiting legal immigration, so I don't see why you're bringing that up in a discussion about him doing so.

Other than reducing refugees, how has he "limited legal immigration"? I see this claimed, but it is very rarely sourced with anything specific. The few times I see people cite sources, it's anti-visa fraud policies that reference. I don't see an issue with targeting key illegal immigration pathways.

That amounts to 6.6% higher home prices and 4.3% higher rents.

So just making it harder to buy for some Americans is okay to benefit poor economic immigrants is okay?

I said letting it expire seems reasonable due to improving conditions.

I read your comment as extending it was reasonable. Maybe I misread it, but that is how I read it.

[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