The grassroots of the Republican Party absolutely want a reduction in all immigration. Few actually in Congress though. I'm talking about voters.

That’s what they say, but then they oppose any effort to legalize the immigrants. Congress could legalize them all today if they wanted to.

Why legalize people who entered illegally? Why have rules and quotas then?

The rules exist so that certain people have a pool of “off the books” informants / assets that they can leverage. If you allow them in, then you lose the stick. If you can’t grant citizenship, then you lose the carrot.

This is disingenuous. What the term illegal is referring to is unvetted. We could make all illegal immigrants legal at the stroke of a pen, but that's completely missing the point. We want immigration to be in service to the existing population. Giving a path to citizenship to anyone who has made it here no matter the means is just to torpedo the idea that immigration should be in service to the needs of the existing citizens.

that's not my interpretation, the opposition party votes as a bloc against everything until they aren't the opposition party any more. democrats do that too. neither party can pass a filibuster in the senate so it doesn't matter, it isn't about any party position.

republicans support setting H1B visas at the same standard it was created for in 1991.

I support that. I support linking the standards of minimum compensation to inflation or some automatically moving metric. we already have several higher criteria work visas, H1B's is just the most popular.

republicans support our education visas turning into residency or work visas more seamlessly.

I support that.

the party doesn't support the empathy arguments for people that are here without a visa. I think something more holistic should be considered than mass deportation.

Its important to add nuance. We have many categories of immigration and many populations. As well as a porous mismanaged border.

That’s wrong on its face, since some legislation does get passed. They don’t oppose everything, they are selective. It’s strictly for political points.

If Republican voters supported more immigration, it could happen. They just don’t. And calling people brought here as children by their parents criminals is ridiculous.

As someone who isn't American, the dialogue around immigration in the US seems so odd.

I've lived in six different countries (including the US) and in every other country there is no discussion around illegal immigrants - they are deported. It's not even a political issue. Having secure borders is a norm.

Then I get to the US and there is this weird political debate around it. For someone reason it's "bad" to refer to people who enter illegally as "illegal immigrants". People argue that people who entered illegally should be legalized.

I find it really odd.

It's because the US has historically promulgated a nudge-nudge wink-wink attitude that could be summed up as "You can't come here legally, but if you get through our defenses, there will be plenty of work waiting for you."

Many of us have sympathy for people who came in under this system who generally just want to work their asses off doing jobs no American wants to do.

We're also talking about kids brought here as toddlers. Many of us think deporting these people is particularly cruel, as their home country is completely foreign to them.

> It's because the US has historically promulgated a nudge-nudge wink-wink attitude that could be summed up as "You can't come here legally, but if you get through our defenses, there will be plenty of work waiting for you."

Do you mean official US government policy? Do you have a source for that claim?

Does nudge-nudge wink-wink imply official policy to you?

How about undocumented immigrants openly hanging outside of Home Depot waiting for work, while everyone looks the other way because contractors rely on them? That feels like unofficial policy to me.

So what you're saying is you know it's true, but there isn't any evidence?

The fact that the US has a bad track record on enforcing immigration law isn't proof of a "wink wink" policy, especially if you considering huge proportion of Congress doesn't want immigration laws enforced.

Not wanting immigration laws enforced is exactly what I'm talking about with nudge-nudge wink-wink. An unenforced law isn't really a law.

Also you're crazy if you think most Republicans in Congress actually want immigration laws enforced. They like the cheap labor. They just want to use it as a wedge issue every 2-4 years.

> Not wanting immigration laws enforced is exactly what I'm talking about with nudge-nudge wink-wink.

But there are lots of explanations beyond "wink-wink" for not enforcing immigration policies. The Democrats want more immigration, even if it's illegal, so where they have the power (say SF) they don't enforce them.

That doesn't mean the Democrats are happy with the status quo of a large illegal immigrant working popoulation.

> Also you're crazy if you think most Republicans in Congress actually want immigration laws enforced.

Really? So place like Texas that are trying to stop illegal immigration at the border but being blocked really want illegal immigration? I don't think so.

The words “give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” are engraved on the Statue of Liberty. We were all taught about immigrants trying to escape poverty, war and hardship by coming to America and starting a new life for themselves and their families. So it’s got a bit of a romanticism to it, and it’s hard to blame anyone for doing whatever it takes to get their families into the country like we saw the immigrants in our history books do.

Same dialog and divide exists here in Sweden. What some call illegal immigrants, others call paperless. So it is not a US-exclusive thing, and also here, the government have a hard time to execute deportions.

I don't really know much about India but they seem to have more illegal immigration than the US does and per https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50670393 seem like they have discussions about amnesty there too. My assumption would be that any regional economic power with long borders will struggle with illegal immigration.

Did those countries have millions of people trying to go there?

Yes. Look at Europe. The UK's policy was "hostile environment", which was basically make staying illegally so hostile that people wouldn't come.

Canada loved to mock the US's treatment of illegal aliens (for political gain) until they started pouring into Canada. Even with those seeking asylum, Canada was pushing the "third country" agreement that people need to seek asylum in the first country they enter, not pass through the US and come to Canada. For illegal aliens, Canada is deporting record numbers,[2] but Canadians are pretty united in "you can't enter Canada illegally".

I lived in Asia and it was similar. Very strict tracking of legal immigrants and a robust process for removing people staying illegally.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office_hostile_environmen...

[2]https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/alarming-number-of-deportati...

So our immigration policy is you can either do all the work migrate legally or you can sneak in and we will legalize you. Congress should make that our official immigration policy?

JD Vance's wife is Indian and her father is from India. He came her legally and won a green card.

Vance is opposed to illegal immigration and wants to deport all the illegals that Biden has let in to the country. What dont Democrats understand by this

Because it’s functionally impossible to deport all “illegals” without massively disrupting legal immigrant communities? How exactly do you propose the illegal immigrant gestapo determine someone is here legally? Race? Accent? Stop every brown person on the street and ask for papers…? What don’t republicans understand by this

Or you could just... require proof of citizenship/legal residence for housing, jobs, etc.? No need for Gestapo checking papers.

Er, this is already the law right? Every job I’ve held in the US, I needed to prove I’m eligible to legally work. Obviously this doesn’t work to resolve the issue at all.

Illegal immigrants have been working small restaurants, ethnic supermarkets etc. since time immemorial, law enforcement has turned a blind eye is all. Now with the rise of gig economy, there are tons of jobs where you never even see your employer, so it’s even easier: there are citizens/permanent residents/others with work permits renting out their gig accounts like Uber Eats to illegals.

Plenty of people work for cash under the table

There are many jobs where it isn't enforced.

The Feds know where most illegal aliens live and work, they just don’t do anything about it.

Brilliant idea. Have you heard of Form I-9?

Some industries, like agriculture or restaurants, rely so heavily on cheap immigrant labor that enforcing this would cause an economic crash and food prices would soar. Other industries will ask prospective employees their SSN, which illegal immigrants don't have. So, which part do you wish to change?

You're saying the only way for America, basically the richest nation in the history of the world, to produce food is to rely on illegally paying and exploiting foreigners? How do all the other less rich countries make food then?

Illegal immigrants have many methods of getting SSNs. Like, it's not even difficult.

I'm saying that it's force massive changes, and, really, increase prices significantly (food is more expensive in Europe for example). Same in restaurants, you'd have far less staff.

It's not impossible but it'd have to go with cultural changes, and have a dire impact on poor people. Just because the US is rich doesn't mean it's working well, just look at healthcare and how costly and unfair it is.

> require proof of citizenship/legal residence for housing, jobs, etc.?

Gestapo comparisons aside, you do understand that this is a significant deviation from the status quo in the US, right? The US can't even agree on a unified federal ID; what makes you think we're anywhere close to accepting a world in which the government is a party to civil matters like leases?

(And to be clear: enforcing this kind of introspection absolutely would require an enforcement agency with unprecedented visibility into the paychecks and housing statuses of every single person in this country.)

I think you could get 90% of the way to “all” with information that’s already in federal databases. People have jobs. Look at the fake / duplicate SSNs. So, John Smith with SSN 999-99-9999 is a White Male born in 1943, but the family at his residence is Asian and in their 30s? Absolutely no need to harass random people.

There’s a very interesting question to be answered as to whether more high-quality immigrants come through legal immigration or illegal immigration.

Legal immigration is more likely to bring those you actively desire via quotas. Still illegal immigration has the advantage of raw numbers.

There’s also the question of how many 2nd/3rd generation immigrants go on to become high-quality from each group.

There's absolutely nothing preventing large "raw numbers" of legal skilled immigrants to high-income countries, except policy choices that are overtly hostile towards increasing legal immigration.

Trump supported a plan to reduce legal immigration by half:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigra...

As an immigrant in the US I looked at the plans ( produced by Stephen Miller) and would not have qualified to be admitted.

High-skill immigrants disproportionately found companies (whose very existence implies driving up demand in the labor market), as well as disproportionately induce new consumer demand (high-skill -> high pay -> high consumption), which again drives new companies.

Out of America (and the world's) only $1T companies: Brin and Huang are 1st gen immigrants. Nadella is a 1st gen immigrant; he brought Microsoft out of it's malaise.

(Jobs' bio father was an immigrant, as was Bezos' adoptive father)

3/5 ain't bad. (2/5 if you're a stickler)

Tesla, which at one point was a $T company and is currently pretty close, is also famously founded by an immigrant.

There are very few people in tech in America who will not have worked for an immigrant founder/CEO at some point in their career.

> Nadella is a 1st gen immigrant; he brought Microsoft out of it's malaise.

I agree with most of what you posted, but not enough credit is given to Ballmer here. He set Microsoft on the trajectory that Nedella followed and got the fuck out of the way. There were a lot of cringe Ballmer moments but he had a profound impact on Microsoft, probably much more so than Nadella so far. And none of this is meant to take anything away from Nadella's competency. Just that Ballmer gets blamed for a whole lot despite setting MSFT up for the success Nadella (and shareholders) enjoy.

So, you do understand how this exactly demonstrates how you are anti-immigration, not just anti-illegal immigration?

I am not the original commenter. I am not anti immigration. I am merely critical of it. We need skilled healthcare workers. Instead giant corporations are focusing on importing software engineers o drive down wages.

anti-illegal immigration and pro-illegalizing immigration

Lowering wages and salaries for skilled workers has a big disinflationary effect and slashes inequality. (The bulk of inequality is indeed due to skill-biased divergence in labor income, not passive or unearned income from asset ownership.)

I agree if we look at through a purely economical lense, but you can’t deny that this statement may sour some voters opinions.

That's an article from 7 years ago?

Don't you think it makes more sense to look at Trump's 2024 platform?

https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/

The only statement on legal immigration: "Republicans will prioritize Merit-based immigration, ensuring those admitted to our Country contribute positively to our Society and Economy, and never become a drain on Public Resources."

The amount of room they give to interpret that vague statement however they want could fit an aircraft carrier. Their actual policy position is in their project 2025 materials and it curtails legal immigration pretty significantly along similar lines that trump attempted to tread in his first presidency.

Project 2025 is not the Trump official 2024 platform. It's a policy white paper published by an independent think tank.

Why would I look at that?

A lot of former Trump administration officials are involved in Project 2025, at least 140, which is more than half of the people listed as authors and contributors to their Mandate for Leadership document [0]. There's also over 100 conservative organizations on the Project 2025 advisory board [1], organizations that have also endorsed Trump for president. There's a lot of overlap in this document with positions that Trump has endorsed.

It appears to everyone, on both the left and the right, that Project 2025 is what conservatives want for a future Trump administration. There doesn't seem to be much of a competing vision for the future of the Republican party, certainly nothing as detailed as this 900 page document nor as widely backed by other conservatives.

This is why a lot of people are looking at this document. Maybe you should be, too?

I do acknowledge that Trump has been trying to distance himself from Project 2025 lately, coinciding with the press coverage the details in that document have been getting.

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-pro...

[1] https://live-project2025.pantheonsite.io/about/advisory-boar...

> It appears to everyone, on both the left and the right, that Project 2025 is what conservatives want for a future Trump administration.

Sure, but it's not Trump's platform. If he wanted to implement those policies, he'd put them in his platform.

He didn't.

Just like the Democrats, lots of left wing policy groups have a list of policies they'd like Biden to implement. It would be silly of me to assume otherwise.

> I do acknowledge that Trump has been trying to distance himself from Project 2025 lately.

This is an odd take. "Trying to distance himself"? I think you mean "clarifying that those policies are not his own".

Stop spreading mis-info about Trump and Project 2025 which he is not involved in.

Of course he isn’t involved in it, trump doesn’t come up with any policy. Doesn’t mean it isn’t the position of his party.

So you're very much inclined to agree if I said "down with America" is the policy of the Democratic party.

In the last ten years or so, I came to understand the parable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” in a visceral way. We can all see the viciousness and cruelty to scapegoats is Trump and the conservatives binding principal, and that they’ve settled in immigrants as that scapegoat without much regard to legal status. You can tell me all you want that the evidence of my eyes and ears is false, but I am not able to turn them off.

It seems like Trump’s immigration stance has evolved significantly in the seven years since this article was written. A few weeks ago he appeared on the All-in podcast and promoted the idea of giving green cards en masse to foreign students upon graduation. I support the idea even if I don’t support the candidate.

Meanwhile if we forget what his lips are doing and watch for the fist we’d see his republican party has a different agenda. Namely one about picking certain favorite nations and excluding others. Really just read the project 2025 materials and forget whatever tangents he goes on, as he doesn’t hold himself accountable to what he might say.

So if a text says your name 100 times, you automatically wrote it? He has nothing to do with Project 2025.

"In fact, at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025, a CNN review found, including more than half of the people listed as authors, editors and contributors to “Mandate for Leadership,” the project’s extensive manifesto for overhauling the executive branch" [0]. Here's details on a bunch of them [1].

People and organizations, not just on the left but also over 100 influential organizations on the right [2], take Project 2025 as the desired direction for a future Trump administration. Trump himself has endorsed many of the same positions in this document.

Right or wrong, that's why people have made the association between Trump and Project 2025. This is what conservatives as a group seem to want for a future Trump administration. There doesn't seem to be a competing vision for the party, and certainly nothing laid out in 900 pages of detail.

Why wouldn't people on the left make the association between Trump and this document when so many on the right do?

[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-pro...

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/project-2025-ex-trump-contributors-...

[2] https://live-project2025.pantheonsite.io/about/advisory-boar...

Yes of course, but as I told someone else, if I said I believe the left is associated with "down with America" you would disagree. Just because 1% of the left might say that, doesn't mean it's true for all of you.

The Democrat obsession with Trump implementing Project 2025 strikes me as similar to the Republican obsession with Biden implementing the Green New Deal a few years ago. It's the president's radical legislation that isn't endorsed by the president and isn't legislation.

Being strongly anti illegal immigration is among their positions, yes, but I think OP is more referring to their position of erecting additional.barriers in the way of legal immigration.

They have discovered it is easier to win political points by making current legal immigrants illegal and deporting them, than addressing what people think of as "illegal immigration". But they get to call it the same thing :-)

It's a mistake to make the good-faith assumption that Republicans have logically consistent views.

To Republicans, Cubans don't count as illegal immigrants because they're escaping "communism," and their immigrants consistently vote red. Plus, the majority of Cubans are white and Christian, unlike the brown immigrants that Republicans don't want in the country.