If the US is so "exploitative", we should be keeping illegal immigrants out for their safety.
And democrats only halfway want to fix it. If they actually succeed, they also lose a drum. And have to pay more for chicken and oranges.
Making non-immigrant visa or work permits easy to obtain would be trivial (relative to other gov endeavors). But we don’t. I’m left to conclude the political elite on both sides like it this way.
It take tremendous effort to immigrate, legally or illegally. Anyone telling you that they are lazy is obviously lying.
What about long term immigrants who end up disabled through no fault of their own? Or who get cancer? Or who end up having a child (who is an American citizen) and that child is special needs and the immigrant can't manage a full time job and care for their child? If they get pregnant and end up on bed rest or with a traumatic birth that takes them out of the workforce for a period of time?
There are ways to end up needing to rely on welfare that aren't due to laziness or a desire for handouts.
If the answer is 'kick them out', I'd be worried about what we're teaching our American kids watching. There are two lessons they could pick up, and neither is good for their moral development or sense of self. The first is that anyone who lacks the ability to work has no value, and that will engender greater alienation and isolation as they place all of their self-worth on their ability to earn money. They'll look upon the elderly, children, and caretakers with disdain (Interestingly, this probably won't help the birth rates either...). The second is that they are protected but those people should be disposed of when they're not useful. This will make them arrogant and introduce the idea of dehumanizing other groups, which will further the cracks of division in our society.
Poor choice of words. Illegals are not citizens. That's the whole point.
> have no recourse if they're exploited
The recourse is to go back. In the era when you could just immigrate to the US just by getting on a boat (before the Immigration Act of 1924), about 1/3 of immigrants went back to their home country if they did not make it in the US.
See:
> From 1908 to 1932, 12 million individuals migrated to the United States. Over the same period, four million returned to their source country.
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00144... (you have to pirate it to view the full thing)
But now, the expectation of leftists is that the government is somehow supposed to help the failed immigrants.
The idea that the US is composed of true Americans that have been here since the beginning is an outright Republican fantasy. A delusion to make white immigrants feel better about themselves. But it's just not true.
This has always been a country composed of immigrants, and it's always something we've been proud of. We have long been the melting pot. To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
If they were born in America they aren’t immigrants.
> To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
"To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here." is just a useless emotional thought-terminating phrase.
I say this as an immigrant to the US myself.
What is different this time is that, for the first time ever, we have people who believe that immigration, as a concept, is not a net-benefit. We can disagree on the amount of immigration, sure.
But never, in our history, has "none" been an acceptable viewpoint. It is fundamentally incompatible with everything this country stands for, going back to our inception. And, before anyone says anything, yes the far-right is trying to stamp out all immigration. They might not say it, but their actions certainly do.
Even if true (and it's not), what even is your point? Do you not think people that work and pay taxes should get any benefits? Do you think it's ok that people are exploited if they're immigrants?
It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs, but they do have to pay taxes. Interesting enough, they even commit 50% less crime than citizens.
To think these people can't be exploited and that it's trivial to return to their home countries shows a lack of critical thinking.
For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
The list of countries that have had their democratically elected leaders overthrown or were otherwise destabilized by the US and its corporate elite is long and well documented.
False. Medicaid is US state-subsidized health insurance, which undocumented immigrants are eligible for:
"Children (0–18 years old) can get full Medi-Cal coverage, no matter their immigration status. Adults (19 and older) are currently eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage, regardless of immigration status. Starting on January 1, 2026, adults who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS) will no longer be able to enroll in full Medi-Cal. If you already have coverage, you can keep it; just make sure to renew your coverage during your renewal month."
https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/medi-cal-immigrant-eligibility-faqs/
(Medi-Cal is the California version of Medicaid)
>For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.
Not everything is the fault of the USA.
Chile, one of the most famous examples of American intervention, is now one of the wealthiest countries in Latam: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?mapSele...
Polls showed most Panamanians approved of Operation Just Cause. You can see after the operation in 1989, Panama's median income started ticking upwards: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?tab=lin...
And when the US intervened in Venezuela recently, Venezuelans were dancing on the streets.
As an isolationist, I'm against American interventions. Our track record is mixed at best. But the idea that every world problem, or every South American problem, can be blamed on the US somehow is a vast oversimplification.
Federal medicaid funds do not go to illegal immigrants. If a state wants to cover them they have to do that out of state revenue.
Since medicaid is partially state funded and mainly federally funded that's what opens up the door for states to have different rules for eligibility (expanding beyond the federal standard). However, the states have to cover the excess when they decide to do that.
I agree that bad faith presentations on how things work is definitely a problem. But I think the reason immigration is a disaster is because both republicans and democrats have decided to be xenophobic. There's no political party pushing an alternative narrative. But further, the current system works for big corporate donors. The broken immigration system makes it easy for a company to exploit H1B workers or farm laborers/construction workers.
That, IMO, is why the system is so broken. Our politicians used 9/11 as a way to ramrod in draconian border policies "to fight terrorism" but really because they benefit those that own big businesses.
Until either party decides that immigrants are our neighbors and not scary "criminals" the system will remain completely busted.
I'm not even sure how I feel about immigration restriction. But I do want to get the facts straight. Be careful about assuming that anyone who mentions facts which are inconvenient for your worldview is "writing in bad faith" or "being stupid on purpose". That's a fast-track to epistemic closure like we see in religious cults.
Hahahahahhahagahahhahagaggahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
Brother, we're the 4th largest economy in the world. We hold up an outsized percentage of the US economy.
> But I do want to get the facts straight
Oh do you now? You're the one that believes countries are better off after the US overthrows their democratically elected leaders and that the Venezuelans were celebrating in the streets (most of those were AI videos btw).
You just want to defend US imperialism and to scapegoat hard working immigrants.
Why hasn't the pandemic loan been paid back? Why do so many in Silicon Valley want to relocate to Austin or Miami?
>most of those were AI videos btw
Source? Most of the discussion on the venezuela subreddit seemed pleased about the intervention
https://old.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1q2yxsb/trump_acaba_d...
https://old.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1q4nfzm/opiniones_kam...
You believe Maduro was "democratically elected"? I don't think any serious observer believes he won a free and fair election.
You claimed the dire economics in South America was a result of US intervention. I gave 3 data points indicating that it's not that simple. You haven't given a single data point in support of your position.
>defend US imperialism
As I said, I'm an isolationist. I just get tired of people blaming the US for everything.
That would still mean runtime_terror made a false claim: "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" They didn't specify whether the money for welfare or social programs came at the federal vs state level.
Do they pay income taxes if they're getting paid under the table in cash? If so, please explain how.
Stripping away all wefare because of immigration is a bad bad bad idea.
Given that we make these judgements, the problem with your argument is that you paint the GP as some sort of monster for making the judgement and picking a spot on the scale. It's a valid thing to disagree with where he picks on the scale; it is invalid to argue that there should be no scale.
And to put that into policy gets rid of the scale for everyone. You can see it with abortion restrictions in various states. Instead of the doctor's expertise, the lawyers are the ones to decide.
Then again this is very much on point for the US. There are no experts other than lawyers. /s
What do you mean seems too. The biggest proponents of immigration routinely ask "who's going to work the fields?" As a call to allow immigration. I don't know how to interpret that as anything but importing an underclass.
So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.
When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.
The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.
All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.
My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.
But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.