https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...

I just want to point to a flaw in your reasoning.The point is not that immigrants are some special kind of human beings that require more assistance. It is just that immigration can unlike natural population growth, result in arbitrary population growth in a short amount of time.

From that view point, it makes sense that immigrants can overburden the social services, because the latter does not get a chance to accommodate the increased population properly, causing additional suffering to existing population.

Also the "all immigration happens overnight" plan is obviously a bad way to handle things. That lag wouldn't be a big deal if we 'merely' instantly doubled the rate we issue green cards and ramped up from there, just to make up some numbers.

Definitely.

>I could see it actually helping out with our self-inflicted doctor supply problems.

Only if they are overrepresented which they aren't(in Europe at least). You need to actually work hard to convince doctors to come to your country and not others, but with other migrants you need the opposite. Convince them to stop coming.

Well the US isn't Europe and it imports a ton of doctors.

We pay doctors a lot and have an artificially limited supply of native doctors.

For example, where does that 99,999,999th person sleep on the night they arrive in this country? What is their immediate plan? How and why did they come here? Your hypothetical has them almost emerging from the ether as an inherent problem rather than a person making an active decision to move to somewhere they think they will have a better life. If we stop providing them a better life, they'll stop coming. But the primary path to doing that is making life worse for everyone already here and none of us should want that.

There's no goalposts moving here mate, the comment covers the same talking point from my initial comment: too much legal migration burdens social services making people want to cap or stop legal migration too, not just illegal. Reading is not your strong point I take it if you couldn't understand that. Or you're malicious.

>hey way you're combining the concepts of immigrants and refugees

Again, it's a follow up on my previous comment explaining why people want a cap on legal migrants not just illegal. Too much migrants and too much refugees is also a bad thing, since both groups get access to social services creating a burden for the locals.

No, no, it is MY mistake for indulging people like you who argue in bad faith or can't read through a point of view making unfounded accusations about things you didn't say the moment they see they can't win with arguments so they need to attack you personally by first trying to undermine your credibility accusing you of "moving the goalpost".

Like, I feel for you and your situation, but I just don't think it's sustainable for Blue States to keep being patsies by letting the Red States control what happens with Blue State money.

The pizza parties ARE indeed draining the company, but it’s so minor and ultimately spending your big brain on cutting pizza parties is diverting attention from your real problems that led to this point.

I don’t support illegal immigration but it has little to do with our current major problems. It’s just a political tool to distract the voter.

Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.

Population growth can happen with or without immigration.

Also, what? Are you describing a healthy economy?

Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors.

Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors.

So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions.

> or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?

In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked.

That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news.

>That is what legal immigration is meant for.

In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.

Nobody in government wants to listen. They're too afraid of being called "far right" if they give airtime to people wanting less migration so what happens is that that only breeds resentment and a rise of the actual far right, leading to a self fulfilling prophecy that could be avoided if they just enable discourse to things they don't like to hear but are pressing issues of large voter base.

>Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse.

Because governments don't make the distinction between the two, you give them an inch, they take a mile. If you let them enable any migration over time they will abuse it to flood the market with cheap labor as their corporate lobbyists push them to, like they did with H1B since 1990, which was initially a a scheme to import top soviet scientist after the USSR collapsed(kind of like operation paperclip) and is now used for US companies to import "Microsoft Certified Specialists" from India.

If you want to stop the abuse you have to stop migration completely and then start political negotiations from that point of leverage, on a controlled points based migration system that accounts for actual shortages and domestic public resources.

But that is not what usually happens, right? What usually happens is that some hospital employs a doctor educated from some other country where standard of education is less, instead of someone who is educated from native institutions, because they accept to work for 10x less salary. In this case both the US Society as well as the US educated doctor losses, and the US Hospital and the migrant gains.

Feel free to expand this across socio-economic spectrum..

This doesn't neccisarily.mean the is the best, or even desireable, way to structure society, but I also think the political system is dysfunctional to the point major change is currently impossible

I didnt down vote you by the way. Just throwing out a counter point to consider

There can be negative effects with large inflows locally, but that's a policy failure that can be addressed.

America needs the vigor and drive that immigration brings. Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world. We reject that resource today at our own peril.

Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there

Literally nobody brought up skin color in this entire discussion but you and you're using it in bad faith to call other racists. The typical way of liberals and democrat arguments is always rejecting logic and statistics if they make immigration look bad, and focusing on identity politics and skin color to deflect your arguments as racist. Look in the mirror, the racist might be right there if skin color is the first thing you reach for in a discussion.

>Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world.

And tell me, what happened to the native American Indians when you "courageous, smartest and hardest working" immigrants(my ancestors) moved to America? Where are the descendant of the native Indians today and how many are they and what's their socio-economic situation at the moment in society relative to the immigrants that displaced them? Or look at what happened to Palestinians after they opened their doors to Jewish refugees from Europe since 1945. How are the descendents of those Palestinians faring today? Not so good, huh, barely trying to survive not being genocided by the guests they welcomed in 80 years ago. Every mass migration event in the world has led to violence and demographic displacement of the local population. If those invading your land in high numbers are "smart and hard working" it makes no difference to you if you're getting demographically displaced.

>We reject that resource today at our own peril.

As we should. Why would I want to happen to me what happened to native american Indians or to Palestinians when they accepted foreign invaders(now called migrants)? Just think about it for 3 seconds, why would anyone voluntarily want to bring in their own demise? Except this time around, I'm pretty sure once you're demographically and democratically displaced, you won't get your own minority rights, reservations and casinos by your invaders, because they'll see your suffering as just retribution for the conquest and past sins your ancestors have done over the natives back then. The overton window has already shifted to the point where democrats call and win election based on racist policies of taxing white people more. It'll be like what's happening to the descendents of European immigrants in South Africa and Zimbabwe today. Not pretty.

>Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there

Except UK has had more migration per capita than the US especially since 2020, and their situation has only gotten worse. If you accept more migration then you're guaranteed to end be like the UK.

Why is it that when Americans travel abroad and say how amazing, clean it was and how safe they felt in X country, that country somehow has very low migration rates and draconical laws on visa entry and is hard on crime? Weird how they can't connect the dots on this one.

Is "invaders" on that list to?

In the U.S., we have a right to a jury trial. To decide whether a jury trial right exists in a particular case, we look to whether that case would have been tried to a jury in 1791 in a particular country. Which country is that? The people from that country were the settlers.

If you look at American legal theory and elide people’s names, you might not realize there was anyone here besides British people. There’s more influence in our legal system from ancient Rome than modern Italy.

For the "people who understand supply/demand", why use "want a limit" language? What you actually mean is "want a lower limit, from Y to X".

It's flat-out amazing to me that you blame immigrants for the problems of the American medical system -- which are entirely political in cause and financial in nature.

You want a hermitical state, it has to go both ways. You lock yourself in, but also stop fucking around with military and non-military interventions on every contanent on earth.

I live in Europe, small landlocked country. My government isn't destabilizing anyone but still has some of the highest illegal migration rates per capita in OECD.

This isn't "curious discourse", whatyou're doing is JAQing off (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions)

immigrants don't need to be 'taken care off' because legal immigrants in the US are net social contributors (in fact particularly large ones because the US government didn't subsidize their upbringing and education).

Five minutes on Google would have told you this, that is why "folks I'm just asking questions" gets downvoted, everyone can see through these pseudo gullible provocations

Your submissions to HN evince a pattern that suggests engagement with you would likely fall on deaf ears.

Sure, you might think of it as "people with citizenship of another nation."

But I suspect it's more along the lines of "people who don't look like me."

White Afrikaaners are welcome (we'll even invent persecution and call them refugees), but folk from elsewhere (ie actual refugees), um, less welcome.

The trope about "culture assimilation" also comes up. It's OK for Irish and Italian immigrants to keep their culture, adding to the melting pot, but Mexicans and Africans less so

And sure, lots of people are friendly to "the immigrant they know" while at the same time being very against "immigration". One need look no further than the last few elections to see this in action.

I find your comment completely off base.

What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.

It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).

So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.

- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society

- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)

- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out

So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.

But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.

Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.

Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.

OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.

If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.

Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change.

I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful.

So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.

Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people.

> you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)

You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.

I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening

I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations

Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm

I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were

So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying

If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort

We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success

But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that

And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age

It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times

My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that

I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding

I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs

Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse

> It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other

We definitely agree on this.

> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying

If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed.

    > but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time

I personally find that this strategy both makes me feel more empowered and engaged in these situations as well as gives me hope that if my strategy is more sustainable, then it will slowly be adopted, which is good, I would be delighted to engage with someone who's also following this approach or something like it

    > If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed

Given there's likely multiple other ways to hit those objectives, the route I'm taking only being one of them, I'm satisfied to continue tilling the odd windmill here and there

Once again, thanks for engaging, have a great day!

On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.

The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.

You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253510

No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:

> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?

> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.

To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.

1. The administration has claimed to oppose only illegal immigration in order to encourage legal immigration. [0]

2. The administration has consistently lied about and demonized immigrants who came legally. [1]

3. Recent policies have made legal immigration more difficult. [2]

4. The effect of these policies will be to reduce legal immigration, contradicting the administration's earlier stated goals. [3]

5. The administration has repeatedly expressed white nationalist sentiment. [4]

[0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/05/trump-state-of-the...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHycpIhnFcU

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/23/us/politics/trump-legal-i...

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/01/20/trump...

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/stephen-miller-...

I asked you to rebut the arguments in front of you, instead of just calling people liars. It isn't hard, if you're even a little bit intellectually curious. I'm tired of responding, so I'll just model the behavior for you, and then I'm done.

First, five reasonable arguments against this change, none of which involve calling people liars:

1) It targets the very people who are most likely to contribute positively to US society.

2) It's clearly against the intent of the original status adjustment legislation.

3) If it's actually applied to H1B visas (which is unclear), it's clearly against the intent of the 1990 immigration reform act, which established dual-status visas.

4) It seems intended to eliminate / dramatically reduce green card issuance without legislative intervention. I am against this because it is unconstitutional.

5) It discourages smart people from moving to the USA.

OK, 6:

6) It's especially cruel to families where one family member is already a US citizen or permanent resident.

Now, five arguments in favor of it:

1) It's appropriate to ask people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. tourists, students) to return home at the end of those visas, rather than creating a limbo class of people who are sitting around waiting for status transitions, which is both real (i.e. I personally know people in this situation) and a problem.

2) It distributes the review load around the world. Obviously true.

3) It was never the intent of the 1960 status adjustment legislation to allow non-immigrant visas the ability to transition directly to permanent residence.

4) However blunt the approach, it does eliminate a major incentive problem for gaming the short-term immigration system, if you know that you have to return to wherever you came from, and wait for approval.

5) While I don't think it's appropriate to make this change for pending applications (and to be clear: we don't know if that's what's happening), I think it's completely fair to announce it as a policy change going forward.

A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.

B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.

A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??

Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.

Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.

What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.

The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.

You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):

> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?

In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.

Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:

> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.

No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.

If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.

But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."

> I want you to tell me why you believe that

I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."

It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).

And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as your Motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.

Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."

If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.

Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.

Great. Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo. So instead of saying "I don't believe the people making the policy have legitimate reasons, because those people are liars and their reasons are all lies" (which is ~essentially the comment I was replying to) you can instead rebut them.

> So saying "I don't supporting the policy" is a non-sequitur.

No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact. I don't support the policy. I didn't write it. My advocacy for a policy I don't agree with is irrelevant to my argument here, which is: "don't just call people liars."

> You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."

You're deflecting. If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument.

You could have done that in response to the person who asked you what reasons they had not considered. That would have been one reasonable way to engage, it would have mildly trespassed the bounding attempt in their statement that they had considered the memo, but it would have introduced substance backing up your claim and let you interrogate their claim that they had in fact evaluated the reasons given in the memo.

You didn't do that, though. For some reason you instead chose "I don't support the policy" which, as stated, is a non-sequitur in response to the question ""what reasons have I failed to consider?"

If you'd like to talk about the reasons in the memo or other reasons not in the memo, no one has been stopping you.

> > So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.

> No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact.

A non-sequitur can be entirely factual. This means affirming something as a statement of fact is not an adequate defense against the charge of non-sequitur, it is actually a further non-sequitur.

> my argument here which is "don't just call people liars."

This may be the argument you intended to make. But because you also asserted that legitimate reasons for the policy existed and then refused to defend that assertion with a reasonable response to the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" (including "the reasons in the memo" up until this level of the discussion) and also appear determined to avoid that quality of engagement, you've ended up engaging in a way that works against a general ethos of better discussion and the micro-dynamics which support it.

There's also the fact that it's reductive to assert anyone has "just" called the administration liars. Given that the federal judiciary has retreated from traditional presumption of regularity when fulfilling their judicial responsibility[0] (ie, that the executive is acting in good faith), that's compelling reason to believe the judiciary has found a pattern of admin dishonesty in the social/institutional setting where honesty is most critical. Retreating from the presumption of honesty in lay discussion is a pretty reasonable step. This in addition to my previous argument that dishonesty certainly exists in general and reckoning with that should not simply be reduced to "screaming liar."

I can also see how someone may nevertheless feel that calling the memo transparent pretext is not adequate. The productive response to such a failure where you feel it has occurred would be to bring the official reasons from the memo into the discussion, then ask people what they specifically think is wrong with those reasons.

I didn't engage your comments to defend or attack the policy -- I probably could do that, but it certainly didn't seem to be where you've focused. Instead you've focused on the quality of the discussion, and seem to be confused about why people have been critical and even hostile towards your engagement. It seemed like if you wanted better discourse, explaining how some of your engagement draws that criticism would help. It's strange if you're not interested in that, given that your stated position is about policing the quality of engagement in general, but no one can make you focus on what you don't want to, only point out the contradiction in that as well as the problems of your engagement.

[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...

All the words you've spent here, and you still can't bring yourself to make a single argument against the thing you hate so much.

You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.

I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.

I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.

Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.

If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.

Why is this so hard?

It's hard because you continue to love pretending that people are calling you names even when they're not. It's hard because you find it convenient to demand people defend arguments they're not making.

My position is that your arguments are bad. I've made my arguments why. I don't have to argue about the policy, because I haven't staked a position on it.

I haven't called you names, so it's disingenuous to respond as if "Don't call people names" is on topic. For sake of contrast, saying something like "You're a dishonest piece of troll shit" might be calling you names; it's pretty clear most of my discussion has instead been focused on pointing out the problems with your arguments, positions, and rhetoric, which is part of why you're finding things so hard.

Though at this point your dishonesty is manifest to anyone following along.

This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a spade a spade.

Having a debate about the policy on their terms is exactly what they want. How well did that go when for a week in 2024 everyone was asking "Do Haitians really eat cats and dogs"

Why is this so hard?, as they say

What are the arguments they haven't bothered to consider?

There's really no reason to argue for them, Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually having championed. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags. I guess the reality is finally setting in?

[0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.

Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.

For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:

> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity

I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.

Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?

Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.

> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.

Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?

You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.

For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?

None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.

Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.

Let me show you how that works:

> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.

Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?

The POTUS has lied about immigrants since the moment he came down the escalator in 2015 and hasn't let up since.

From the old tired crime arguments of the past to outright bs (eating cats and dogs!).

Honestly I wish that was all he lied about, but nothing is sacred.

Such as?

The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.

If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:

> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.

It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.

American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.

In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-im... [2] https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil... (paywalled i think, unfortunately)

There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.

It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.

But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?

It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.

Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.

> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,

> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,

> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.

> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.

> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,

Some other selections I found with zero effort:

> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,

> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'

> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.

> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.

What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).

I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?

---

Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.

I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.

> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.

Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?

In Australia it's not uncommon for Somali immigrants to get econ and business doctorates and spawn commercial enterprises: https://thewarsan.com/the-somali-australian-success-stories-...

It's the perfect crutch, great way to never take responsibility for nothing

Though I do wish you well on your holiday plans

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-ri...

https://rickroderick.org/

In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:

http://digamo.free.fr/coreyrobin2017.pdf

On top of this, do you think legal migrants are equal to your fellow country men?

Why else the need for this non sequitur?

So treating instability in these countries as mainly the result of U.S. involvement seems overly simplistic. Many U.S. interventions have contributed to instability, but many forms of U.S. involvement have also contributed to stability. Not to mention the enormous amounts of economic resources that come from the U.S. and enrich other countries through trade, investment, and remittances.

You can make a humanitarian case for immigration without reducing the causal history to "the U.S. destabilized these countries, so the U.S. owes them entry". The history is much messier than that.

Countries do prevent other countries from using their airspace, by the way.

As for U.S. territory, yes, you can make a case that it's the collective property of American citizens who then decide how the property will be governed through their elected representatives. How is that anti-liberty?

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253685 and marked it off topic.

However, the US has been a prosperous country because it welcomes ambitious, hard-working, and skilled people from around the world. They immigrate, build inside the US and for the US, and the US economy grows. This is how the past several decades have worked, and restricting legal immigration would basically destroy this country, its economy, and everything that makes it a great place to live.

I'm a citizen of the US, and I 100% want more smart and hard-working people from around the world to come here and set up shop.

To use your vocabulary, it is a pernicious lie to pretend that America's success from WWI through the WWII recoveries was due to immigration policies, rather than other major countries having their infrastructure destroyed and being forced to use the US as a key supplier due to rather large wars.

(and that's ignoring that US population had booms in there that meant that even though immigration was persisting, there was just a big increase in domestic births).

Though if we're going to adopt those immigration policies, perhaps we should also adopt the tax strategies, corporate regulation, and worker unions that accompanied that growth.

I'm quite fine with that. I drove through an Armenian neighborhood of LA and stopped for a meal at a restaurant whose name I could not comprehend and it was really, fucking tasty. Zhengyalov Hatz in Glendale, if anyone is wondering.

But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that makes the US awesome. "Would-be Einsteins" are far from the only flavor hard-working people who I absolutely welcome.

https://www.cato.org/blog/founding-fathers-favored-liberal-i...

>These foreigners, if not properly disposed of, will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.[1]

-Thomas Jefferson

The Founders had a conception of immigration that is completely at odds with the free for all that exists today, and Cato is partially responsible for people incorrectly thinking that the US was “literally built on the idea of immigration”.

[1] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/gdc/lhbcb/0490...

"From around the world" more like the "world tour" definition

They were welcoming mostly Europeans. First from WASP countries, then for more southern/eastern ones. And then from East Asia (I'll save the rant about the word "Asian" for another time)

Every piece of data shows some groups excel while some groups lag behind

(of course I haven't forgotten about other groups of people that came to the US but most of those didn't come willingly)

Many of the people doing this are themselves children of immigrants. They recognize that individual immigrants can be fine but the large-scale flow of immigrants can create undesirable changes.[1] Don’t assume people are irrational just because they don’t agree with you.

[1] Trump narrowly won the naturalized citizen vote. Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.

I support your idea. Would you agree that all immigrants that arrived in America after, let's say, 1493, have to leave America and apply for citizenship?

If you don't agree, can you propose another immigration year after which you'd have to leave America again? Would you agree on 1783?

I'm not amused. Are you amused?

> They created a new society on the land.

I see my message didn't quite get through.

You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?

Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US.

As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.

>1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance [sic] and 500 years ago China was more advanced.

Yeah real life isn’t your science fiction fantasy. None of this is true. I am aghast at how ostensibly smart people have, just in the last couple years, adopted a view of history that is completely at odds with the written record.

Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.

  There's nothing I would rather be
  Than to be an Aborigine
  And watch you take my precious land away
  For nothing gives me greater joy
  Than to watch you fill each girl and boy
  With superficial, existential shit

  Now you may think I'm cheeky
  But I'd be satisfied
  To rebuild your convict ships
  And sail them on the tide

- i started watching football with my american friends

- i studied the american political system enough to have educated discussions about it

- i caught healthcare fraud at federal level which was mainly hurting very old americans.

- i started doing barbeque

- i started going out on the weekend

- i tip heavily

what i don't do: eat at drive throughs, buy stuff that i don't need, guns etc.

I still carry a chip on my shoulder and worry about ICE just detaining me for no reason.

"They don't assimilate" is just a cover for "They don't look and talk like us".

Assimilation is about how you think and what you value. It’s not just knowing about the American political system, but understanding and embracing the values and worldview that created it.

My father in law is another example. His ancestors came to the U.S. before the revolutionary war and went to Oregon on the wagon trials. He’s soft-spoken, skeptical by default of government and academic knowledge, involved of community civic institutions, extremely tolerant, etc. He grew up dirt poor but would never say he was disadvantaged.

I’d say Tim Walz and Bill Clinton are other stereotypical examples of real Americans. The Obamas, as well, though representing two different groups of Americans.

But I appreciate and enjoy Americans the same way I appreciate and enjoy the Japanese.

Why don't you live by your principles and return to Bangladesh? To use your own argument (not mine), your culture is both inferior to the American culture and Americans have voted to not have "your kind" here.

One way or another, you are being disingenuous, either through your words or your actions.

The founder’s America ceased to exist at the national level with the election of FDR.

Now you are just bullshitting bc you think you have ran out of substantive things to say, which you never had, to begin with.

And yet I'm sure you didn't lose respect for your family and background, because one can do both things simultaneously. But those other brown people are different and bad and have bad culture that ruins things, right?

They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.

Assimilation takes generations, and the point of integration is that some of their culture is retained. That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples), or how languages evolve.

For example, I am from Amsterdam area. The culture there was heavily influenced by Jewish diaspora, and the dialect by Yiddish and Bargoens. The street language nowadays is a mish-mash of English, Jewish, and Arabian culture, as well as that which influenced Dutch language before (mainly English, German, French, Latin, Greek, and I am probably forgetting to mention some). Some parts of our culture are still artifacts from past, we just take them for granted. Last name for example, was introduced by Napoleon. The Austria-Hungarians had influence on the south, and religiously the Catholics are mainly from south (as well as entire Belgium) with the North (above the rivers) being rather Protestants. Language-wise, Belgium's history of three languages is of interest, you could say the same about Switzerland. I wouldn't call USA solely English-speaking either. Heck, just look at the names of places around SV.

Also, would you tip if the food was terrible? I wouldn't. They should be happy I paid (my wife before I knew her once had soup so salty, she send back to kitchen. Chef said was normal. They didn't resolve, yet the soup was on the bill. She and her friends just left).

My recommendation to you? Well, I am not from USA but been in Cali a couple of times. Pivot to people who accept you for who you are. Don't hide where you're coming from, use it to empower you instead.

> They don't have the same religion, customs, values, history, etc.

Correct. But why is it “hatred” for people to not want immigrants to bring foreign customs and values with them? Customs and values are substantive! The customs and values of people around you affect your life, especially in a democracy where those people get to vote on the laws that govern you.

> Assimilation takes generations

Correct! You and Stephen Miller are on the same page about that.

> That is how you get pizza snd maffia to New York (to name two random examples)

Correct again! Why is it “hatred” and “stupidity” if you think the pizza wasn’t worth the mafia?

> For example, I am from Amsterdam area

My hypothesis is that New York City would be cleaner, more polite, better governed, and more orderly if it was still New Amsterdam. But the food would be crap. Do you disagree?

And I'd assume and hope parts of your native culture rubbed off on your American friends.

As someone whose ancestors have been American for quite a while (1850s) I can't make sense of the idea espoused by some on this thread* that "American culture" is something that needs to be strongly protected from changing and that's why we need to virtually lock-down immigration.

The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it.

* (not you, this is just a convenient jumping off point for me to chime in on)

If you think that culture is substantive rather than superficial, then it follows logically. America is extremely successful. So it should be skeptical of cultural influence from places that are very unsuccessful.

> The feature that makes "American culture" powerful is exactly that it assimilates to the people who come here, not that they assimilate to it

But is that true? Massachusetts is one of the most functional states in the country. It is both affluent and prosperous, but also orderly and well governed. What’s a good part of Massachusetts culture that doesn’t come from the original British settlers and their descendants?

Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?

I spent the first 22 years of my life living in Massachusetts around the Boston area and a lot of my fondest childhood memories center around celebrating multiculturism: St Patrick's day parades in Southie, Saint Anthony's feasts in the North End, August Moon Festival in Chinatown, etc.

> Wouldn’t New York City be a better city—cleaner, less corrupt, more orderly—if it was in Massachusetts?

I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.

Those are all superficial. Without those cultural influences, Massachusetts would still be basically the same state, just with worse food.

> I don't think so, I also lived in NYC for a year in 1999 and have visited it many times before and since and found NYC a much more interesting and vibrant place than Massachusetts, though both have their charms.

“Vibrant” is a euphemism for “chaotic and dirty.” Nobody ever says Copenhagen is “vibrant.” Massachusetts is objectively better than New York in almost every way. It has great schools while New York has shit schools, but Massachusetts spends 25% less per student. Massachusetts has much lower corruption, greater state capacity to perform public works, etc. Those are the measures of a place—not whether it is “vibrant” or “interesting.”

not that i know of, actually all the american friends i have made are super respectful of my native culture, especially the food and festivals.

> Saying “you wouldn’t want America to become more like the place you left” is a compelling message to many immigrants.

There is a very very large Indian community that echoes this sentiment (which you can see in very large expat FB groups) and wants to close the doors. They are extremely vocal and supportive of closing immigration, because their children now have to compete with the continuous influx.

Its just humans being human. Everyone wants to look after their own interests and there are lots of special interest groups, each with their own interests.

Nobody above said people who disagree with them are irrational.

Nobody said immigration should happen faster than anyone can assimilate.

They said preventing people from applying for green cards while on an existing visa will make it much much harder to immigrate legally.

If you think immigrants need more time to assimilate so they don't change your culture but you still think immigration is good then it seems like you'd be against this change. On the other hand if you want to limit immigration to just the wealthy this sounds like exactly the matching policy.

Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way. Even if they all did think the US was perfect and their country of origin was garbage that STILL doesn't mean they think other people from their country are bad, obviously. Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.

It reduces the number of immigrants, which facilitates assimilation and reduces the capacity of immigrants to change american culture.

> Also, Trump winning the naturalized citizen vote doesn't mean naturalized citizens all think the same way.

The point is that it’s not just “immigrant” versus “anti-immigrant,” because immigrants themselves are split in views.

> Being at risk from your government or thinking your government needs to change doesn't imply you think other citizens from your culture are bad.

There’s an assumption baked into your statement: that the government they left is unrelated to the “culture.” That’s hotly debated.

My parents grew up in Bangladesh, and both of them believe that Bangladesh is the way it is because of our culture. Their views on immigration thus are nuanced. They think we should treat immigrants well, obviously. But they are pretty alarmed by Little Bangladesh and the ethnic enclaves that exist now, which didn’t really exist in the 1980s when we came here.

That said, you are impressively wrong. If someone doesn't agree with me because they choose to believe obviously false or made-up data, that is being irrational.

Is it rational to suppress large-scale studies of vaccination? If someone says "I am against vaccination because there are no large-scale studies", is that rational?

You should also consider the other side of the equation, which is that immigration is the only thing that's keeping the US workforce and total population growing.

The size of the workforce and overall population has real economic, fiscal and quality of life impacts that every American feels on a daily basis and there's a very strong argument to be made that if your interest is in maintaining US wealth and "strength" globally, you don't want to become Japan, South Korea, Italy or Germany.

This is not to say that immigration policy should be made thoughtlessly or recklessly, but I rarely see the staunchest immigration opponents mentioning the stark demographic reality that faces the country.

The first is that even if every graduate was hired tomorrow, it still wouldn't be enough to outpace the number of older workers leaving the workforce. The Social Security worker-to-retiree ratio was about 5:1 in 1960 and is about 2.7:1 now, and still dropping.

The second is that most new college grads aren't filling the jobs that need filling. The most acute shortages are in fields like agriculture, construction, home health/elder care, meat processing, and hospitality. Unless new grads are going to start doing farm work or taking care of the elderly, there still aren't enough American-born workers to meet the needs of the labor market.

So basically, immigration solves a different problem than the one you're referring to. Yours is a big one too but it's a separate issue.

Im going to infer what they support from what their actions clearly say.

Trump resurrected it in 2024 to claim that all job growth under Biden had gone to immigrants. It wasn't true then either.

A little less than 10% of the workforce.

GP is correct - basically there was a report making that claim about the decline in employment rates of US-born workers over a certain time period. It was almost immediately debunked because it excluded workers older than 65, who are almost exclusively US-born, and excluding them heavily skews the average. Many of these workers also aged out of that bucket during that time period, which makes the comparison misleading, since the actual size of the studied workforce varied, and the workers who were excluded from the studied cohort were strongly correlated with the effect they were trying to demonstrate.

Furthermore, that effect is also exacerbated because of the uneven distribution of baby boomers.

https://youtube.com/shorts/29iZS4vAGV4?si=IhkMkEZweNv1uHro

And mid size companies hire foreign workers in foreign countries and accelerate offshoring.

People then talk about how government should restrict offshoring and punish companies while the Orange Man manufactures his phone and caps in China.

Surely a win for the people.

Trump is a distractor and can make a whole country forget about <insert recent insanity>. Passing a judge is a minor detail here.

Of course it is stupid to talent-leak your country but he just needs you to forget about $LATEST_SCANDAL. That's the value for him. Trump doesn't care about the future of US.

And distracting does not take skill. It only takes a mind poisoned to the core. He will throw anything in his chaos machine to extract wealth. And US has an endless supply of those juicy valuables and values that you can sacrifice and shed.

Let's see what next week has in store!

like it was simple and easy before that. Now it becomes borderline impossible

All because he was a massive loser in middle/high school, and like most bigots, his hatred is rooted in needing to have someone "beneath" him. So he based his entire personality and life around hating anyone not straight, white, male, and "American" so he could feel better about himself.

It is amazing how many people have been killed from all the policies he's been ramming through, simply because of a huge inferiority complex.

It's also a bit sad how every generation of immigrants turn around and pull the ladder up behind them.

This is a real head scratcher. Some of the biggest Trump supporters I interact with at work are people of color, from countries the adminstration has labelled "shitholes" - they would never be allowed to visit - let alone immigrate - today. I guess once you get yours everyone else can go to hell.

Folks from communities of color in the United States I have generally experienced as trending conservative in their values (Oakland notwithstanding). Trump being a 'tough guy' and a 'macho' is often well-received.

Also, for many folks, Trump has long been seen as something to aspire to and someone to emulate. Trump sells a very American and New York image of success, many people believe they want the life he has (notoriety, money, cars, beautiful wife, mistress, good-looking kids, glitz, etc). The Apprentice was a big success for a reason, it sold a version of reality many people wanted to believe in.

So yeah. People don't believe in race. They believe in money and power.

Which is why it is nonsense to say banning immigration is anything other than anti-American.

The idea that it would be a crackdown on illegal immigration was an essentially greedy belief that legal immigrants, especially Hispanic, would be elevated in status. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Their skin color, their language and their community all mark them as targets for harassment.

It will be very hard for the machismo cultures to accept that they were deceived so they'll vote for Trump again.

So the source of high skill immigrants is countries with dictators and economic dysfunction. That used to include places like Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, etc. The first generation brings new ideas and cultural flavour, the second generation is completely American. As long as you don't have religious schools and ethnic charter schools getting state funds, integration is systematic and inevitable.

Sounds they truly have become naturalized Americans

They're in the US precisely because they have the same sentiment about where they came from, and don't want the worst of their origins to follow them. I assume they are also fully assimilated into American culture.

The best explanation I've been able to come up with is that insecure and fluid middle classes, unsure and anxious of their social position but certain that it's not too high, need someone to stomp on, to feel that at least there's someone who's even below them.

"Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose. Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process. "

I read this with the assumption that "nonimmigrant visa" applies to every category of visa listed here under "Nonimmigrant Visa Categories":

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...

Includes H and J. The letters used to refer to those visas comes from the subsections under 1101(a)(15)

This is a pretty broad swath of immigrants - H visa (worker and family), L1 (corporate transfer and family) and K1/3 (spouses of US citizen or green card holder).

What this limits are the truly temporary visitors - tourists, students, etc

From https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...,

> Adjustment of status is the process that you can use to apply for lawful permanent resident status (also known as applying for a Green Card) when you are present in the United States. This means that you may get a Green Card without having to return to your home country to complete visa processing.

Edit: the policy actually indeed mentions dual intent categories:

> USCIS reminds its officers that applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with simultaneously maintaining nonimmigrant status in a category with dual intent.

It does it in a way that will, for sure, cause confusion though.

[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PM-...

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/...

With the caveat that I'm absolutely not an expert in this area and have no clear idea what changes have been made since, it's still highly informative to read this section and the carve-outs that were made at the time.

My current understanding is that the creation of "dual-status" visas (immigration act of 1990) paved the way for using the adjustment-of-status process established 8 USC 1255 for those particular visas (like H1B), and thus makes those visas less vulnerable to a change of interpretation by the executive branch. Contrast to, say, a regular tourist visa.

My current understanding is that the "carveout", as it were, is the creation of the notion of dual-status itself, in the 1990 immigration act. This made H1b visas both immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and thus eligible for INA 245.

For example, a law firm's opinion:

> However, the USCIS memo suggests the new policy may be less applicable to dual-intent nonimmigrant categories (e.g., H-1B, L-1 and their H-4 and L-2 dependents), where applying for adjustment of status is not inconsistent with maintaining status as a temporary visa holder. Dual intent means that a person can legally intend to reside temporarily in the United States for purposes of their temporary H-1B or L-1 work visa and simultaneously intend to apply for a future permanent residence status. Dual intent is a well-established concept in business immigration law, with many decades of support in federal law and regulation. The USCIS policy memo does caution that maintaining H-1B or L-1 dual-intent status alone is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. The USCIS officer must still weigh whether or not to exercise discretion in approving the adjustment application, but adjustment applications have always been discretionary.

https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/top-5-things-t...

The whole system of US of needing to leave the country to even renew visas is absolutely bizarre and does not have analogues in most other countries (at least EU/UK)

Having to go abroad when a visa/PR has already been granted is totally pointless. Green cards are mailed to your home in the US right now.

Perpetrator of misinformation or victim? Ignorant or malevolent?

Six weeks and 255 Euro later, it was in my hand. I have to “renew” it every ten years, but that’s only because the card needs to match my US passport number (and means I don’t have to carry that book around); there’s no interview or document gathering.

Yep. You're kind of in jail.

It doesn't mean that you cannot, it just means that it might complicate your already complicated application. So if a family member dies, maybe... But that's it

You'd be lucky today if that literal jail was IN the USA.

The process is very straightforward - without advanced parole or a valid visa you can’t come back in.

Or if you’ve violated immigration or criminal law you run the risk of being detained.

But that’s how the system is supposed to work.

I cannot be this calm about the administration that is all about the chaos and harm. Thank you for writing what I can't.

Does anyone have data on what this percentage is? Seems like it could be 55%:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-i...

The problem at this point (and not just the US, throughout the west), I don’t think a pollster even needs to slant their question. So many people have been taught that lens over 100+ years of politics.

It’s why I am happy to be Irish American: we never forget a slight, so I am a living vessel for the stories of every time one of my great-grandparents was treated poorly for being a dirty, non-white papist piece of jetsam.

Wonder if we’ll get a third world war that we stay out of until halfway through and then pile on at the end.

Also, it's quite hard to become a permanent resident/immigrant even without the obstacle of this being categorically prohibited. My family, for instance, overcame some very low odds of success to make this happen (highly educated, both PhDs, for what it's worth).

I have learned that most Americans, probably through no fault of their own, have absolutely no understanding of how their own immigration system works. The options for legal immigration were _extremely_ limited and byzantine, and have been for decades, long before Trump.

The majority of permanent residents gain their green card through a status adjustment (ie, from a nonimmigrant visa).

Status adjustments are the norm, not some fringe edge case.

The only large category of immigrants that does not come primarily through adjustment are the "family preference" categories for more distant relative such as adult sons and daughters and siblings.

https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...

Nice.

So, at least one

https://www.state.gov/visas/

However, ignoring family-sponsored routes, it is extremely difficult to get an immigrant visa in the first place, usually requiring years + $10k+ of fees to work your way up to it. You also need a sponsor to pay the fees (legally, you can't pay it yourself). Therefore, the vast majority of people start on a non-immigrant (temporary, restricted employment) visa and eventually ask their employer to sponsor a green card.

When people say "if you wanted to immigrate, you should just get an immigrant visa", they usually assume any other route is a hack or loophole. But it's actually the most common way to immigrate by far. You can, of course, interview for a job from abroad and ask the employer to directly sponsor an immigrant visa, but they'd have to wait years (best case) until you could actually step foot in their office. Plus they'd be forking over thousands in legal fees for an employee they haven't even seen in person. Nobody would do this, so the commonly accepted way is to bring an employee over as a temporary worker first and then apply for a green card while they're in the country.

By the way, the same checks apply for immigrant visa applications both inside and outside the US. You might think that employers are scamming the government by turning purported temporary immigrants into permanent ones, but the exact same qualifications checks, eligibility requirements, waitlists and quotas apply if you do the process inside vs. outside the US. It's entirely possible, and common, for green card applications to get denied (and the applicant's location doesn't factor in to this).

As a practical matter, all these immigrant visas pretty much entail a greencard soon thereafter. In other words, to get them is about as easy as getting a greencard in the first place, give or take, more or less.

The discussion here is really about legal workers, students and others on temporary visas who convert to permanent status.

this is a good example, because let's say someone is here on a student visa or temp work visa, falls in love and gets married. without the ability to adjust their immigration status they now have to leave the country - probably for years - to apply and hopefully get a greencard. Good luck making that marraige work.

We should increase the number of immigrant visas and make it straightforward what the process is to get a green card like what one would see in other countries like Canada and Australia.

Meanwhile, non immigrant visas should remain non immigrant and very restricted criteria for changing status (eg. marriage) without reapplying abroad.

Those weren’t services for the benefit of the immigrant. Those were a service to the US citizen who sponsored them and had to sign up to be on the hook to take care of their welfare.

The government was very clear to my spouse that she could divorce me the second her application was granted and I was still on the hook for any welfare she may end up needing.

This is just being anti immigrant. The same way they talk about illegal aliens and then you find out they really mean legal asylum seekers because they don’t like the process.

Or when they use the phrase Heritage Americans to discount recent immigrants.

Or when they just straight up say we have too much legal immigration.

The only surprising thing about this change in policy to me is that they are still keeping a veneer of not being racist on it, instead of just being as open as they have in other cases.

Practically every country has pathways to permanent residence or citizenship via non immigrant visas, including the US.

Why? Because it makes practical sense. You can be living in the US on a H1 visa for 6 years, and at this point you could have a wife, kids etc, so it makes sense to have a pathway to residency where you don’t have to leave the country at that point.

Unfortunately, they do stir the populace in a cadence long enough that prior examples are are only fragments of memory.

More unfortunately, however, is that the time it takes to heal from such governments is similar to said cadence.

Everything anti-immigration under both Trump terms comes directly from the fascist Stephen Miller. From blocking Muslim countries to trying to end birth right citizenship.

Of course he has full support from Trump who usually lies about knowing fascists he's had lunch with or tells to "stand back and stand by."

And endlessly lies to demonize immigrants. "They're not sending their best." "They're eating the cats and dogs."

SPLC has an article on Miller if you want to waste your time.

https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/stephen-...

It’s the former: intentionally malevolent. Trump cabinet members, including Stephen Miller have said this is exactly why.

So that's kind of the point, to make the system arbitrary and capricious. It's to make the lives of immigrants more difficult.

For example, when one applies for adjustment of status ("AoS", meaning the I485), there are several things you can also apply for, most notably an Employment Authorization Document ("EAD", I765) and/or Advance Parole ("AP", I131) to allow you to travel.

In years gone by, you'd get the temporary documents in 3-4 months typically and your green card in under a year (after filing the I485, not for the entire process, which can be substantially longer).

So this administration has seemingly started a process for marriage cases where you file an I130 and I485 concurrently (the I130 is to prove you're free to marry and you have legally married, the I485 is to adjust status) where USCIS will approve the I130 but then just sit on the I485, not approving or denying the case, and never issue the EAD or AP so you can't work. Lots of people can't afford to not work for 1-2 years while this all plays out.

But that's the point.

Also, there are rumors that Palantir is getting invovled here. Rumor is that USCIS is sitting on I485 approvals while they wait for a new system to come online that will let USCIS look at way more data, likely including social media data, to find reasons to deny cases, so they don't want to approve cases before it's available. This is uncofirmed but there's a lot of anecodtal data for approved I130, no decision on the I485.

For marriage cases, this administraiton clearly wants people to consular process instead because the administration has broad powers that can't be challenged to simply withhold visas to nationals of certain countries and those bans can't be challenged in court, as per Trump v. Hawaii [1].

This is a problem for people who have made asylum claims because they realistically can't use the passport from whcih they've claimed asylum (if they even have it) and they certainly couldn't or shouldn't go back to their home country. A separate rule generally requires people to use the embassy of their country of birth. Again, that's to make life difficult.

It's not clear to me yet how this rule change affects those on H1Bs that want to adjust. Is the Trump admin going to require H1B holders to leave the country to adjust? That's going to create problems if so. The asylum case and the home country embassy rule mentioned above are two big reasons.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

They might as well mail it to your home. That’s what happens today.

This phrase is one of those viral ear worm kinda things tossed into so many conversations, it doesn't actually mean anything at this point it's so overused.

And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares? If someone comes to the US, does good, useful work, and stays out of trouble, I want them to be given the opportunity to stay permanently. You may not, perhaps, but, well... I don't care.

> The so-called "non-immigrant" visas are really not that. "Non-immigrant" has a specific legal meaning

The legal meaning here is the same as the common usage. For example, H1B is defined as someone “who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform services.” The words here are being used in their ordinary way.

> And even if they were truly non-immigrant, who cares?

You should care that the actual operation of the immigration system reflects the laws Congress actually passed through the democratic process. Congress didn’t have the votes to pass a permanent immigration pathway back then, and it doesn’t have the votes today.

If you want to make your case to change the law, be my guest. There’s zero appetite for it in the GOP, and very little willingness to use political capital on the issue by Democrats. Think about the fuss Democrats have made over deporting illegal immigrants. But they’ve said almost nothing about Trump’s attempts to restrict legal immigration.

You have plenty of historical examples of this, most prominently slavery being legal.

It's ok to defend a thing, but just because the law says so is very rarely a good argument.

But it’s not supposed to be extremely common to apply for a green card on an H or J visa. Those visas are explicitly “nonimmigrant” visas for people “temporarily” in the U.S. who have “no intention of abandoning” their foreign residence. Read the statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1.... It’s subsections (a)(15), (a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (a)(15)(J).

The people who thought of this are trying to return the practice to the actual intent of the law. The law was sold to the American public as a temporary worker program. It was not billed as a pathway for permanent residency.

If the intention was to limit the number of people becoming permanent residents, then they could have done that explicitly. But by doing it this way, they are just fucking with people. And the talent that built our tech will take all their knowledge and skills back to their home country.

If the intention is to strengthen other countries by stopping their brain drain, then this would be a good move.

The question is what was the intention of the H1B program when the law was enacted by duly elected legislators? It was never sold to the public as a path to permanent residency. It certainly wasn’t sold to the public as a system where each H1B granted would lead to citizenship, followed by bringing several family members with them through uncapped family reunification visas.

And the US has proven me correct over and over again in that assessment. Will watch with great pleasure the brain drain your country will face, and I honestly hope your economy will completely collapse.

The U.S. passed restrictive immigration laws in 1921. The foreign born population dropped to under 5% by 1970 (compared to 15% today). The decade on either side of that was a golden age for Silicon Valley.

Google at least, I think people would say there was a period of near-universally believing it was a good thing, and an immigrant was a co-founder.

It definitely shaped our society. And if you think it's for the worse, might that suggest college-educated Anglo-adapting immigrants are more dangerous to us than the ones right-wingers are telling us to focus on?

That is your “good” immigrant. He is the right winger.

Your approach would be more correct in a civil law system, but there are no pure civil law systems anywhere in the world. In actual civil law countries, once there is an established interpretation of the law, it usually cannot be changed without legislative action.

Then the administration can say yes or no, in the same way that they can say yes or no to someone applying from abroad.

This is usually just for the final issuing of the GC, and where USCIS approval has already happened (for instance, on an EB1A).

People frequently do this so they don’t have the travel restriction. Source: I just did it.

It's relatively unusual. 84% of EB1s adjusted rather than apply at consulates in the last quarter USCIS released data for. Maybe it made sense for your circumstances.

https://ohss.dhs.gov/system/files/2025-07/2025_0725_ohss_leg...

This is a long winded way of saying you're right with "intentionally malevolent"; this is the next step in a pretty transparent plan.

Have you not been paying attention?

For IT jobs - why can't you?

Not to mention what does the company do for the I-9. The emploee has no authorization to work for a US company.

Every part of the MAGA platform is a smokescreen of outrage, intended as cover for policies that favor the ultrawealthy.

An aware and motivated population legislates and taxes their way out of the establishment and perpetuation of dynasties; this has been done in the past.

It's always weird to me to see confusion/uncertainty such as this.

It's intentionally malevolent. Obviously. MAGA types hate immigration. They make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, but the fact is that they hate all kinds of immigration (unless you're white-looking and conservative enough). Anything they can do to make it harder for non-citizens to stay in the US is exactly the point for them.

And more the better if they can sow fear and threat of cruelty while doing it. That's their playbook. It's MAGA 101.

It surprises me a lot. You can be a politician making a career on a hatred of immigrants, but your prosperity is bound to the prosperity of USA, so why to destroy it? It cannot be just malevolent, it is plain sheer stupidity. It seems to me even worse than roman elites fighting their civil wars while Rome itself was crumbling. They were in a situation of a tragedy of commons, stupid but understandable. But USA politicians really going against immigration is just something else. You can always look tough on immigrants while not hurting brain drain from all over the world.

There were dumb rumors that Trump is a Kremlin agent, but now I don't think they are so dumb. It is not enough to be a fool to inflict so much damage to USA.

The policy specifically calls out immigration violations as the problem. It doesn’t seem crazy to me to restrict the benefit of AOS in the US to people who have NOT committed immigration violations.

In addition, the policy specifically calls out that AOS in country is entirely appropriate where immigrants hold dual intent visas. This would include H1-B (skilled workers and family), L1 (corporate transfer) and K1/3 (spouses of citizens).