5upplied_demand

>And during Trump's first term? It's -34,000 (yes, that's a negative number)

And during Obama's first term it was -653,000 (yes, that's a far larger negative number).

Bush's full 8 years had higher immigration than Obama's 8 years. Obama also deported more people than Trump [1]. Do you allow those numbers and facts to speak for themselves? Because when I read them, I don't hear them saying: "the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible." Your initial claim that you still haven't backed up in any meaningful way.

[1] https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2024-01-04/desantis...

I never said any of those things. I simply pointed out the legality of things today. If you think it should be changed, you should state that and own it.

Instead, you completely ignored the "both sides" portion of my comment to build a strawman to rant against.

It doesn't seem like you are looking for an honest discussion.

A sentence saying that the number of immigrants went up is not proof of the claim you made that: "the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible."

None of these sources prove that "the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible."

If anything, it proves that point completely wrong tying higher immigration numbers to better economic conditions. Bush had more immigration than Obama (who deported more people than Trump). Trump had higher levels of immigration than Obama, until COVID happened and basically shut things down. As the economy recovered, immigration went back up under Biden.

> The ones left are actively breaking the law and are more or less fugitives.

Overstaying a visa is a civil violation, not a criminal offense. If you want to hunt them as fugitives, change the law.

> we could use state police to deport people

So much for states rights.

> both sides of the aisle are making a lot of cash building up the police state.

In what ways? I don't see a lot of police unions supporting left-leaning or Democratic candidates. Democrats have voted against things like the Patriot Act in much larger numbers than Republicans. Democrats have introduced bills like "Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2026" which have basically no Republican support. The biggest private advocates for an increased police state (Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Palmer Luckey, etc.) are huge Republican supporters and donors.

He gave over $60 million to his own campaign and used his existing celebrity to get media coverage 24/7.

> Since the Democratic party is the one that wants to let in US as many illegal immigrants as possible

I love to see your source on this one. I personally haven't seen this policy stance from any Democrats.

Couldn't you just better fund the court system so the court date isn't years away? Or improve the citizenship process? Maybe some of that $100 billion we gave to ICE could have gone to the courts for faster processing of these specific cases. That would seem like the more civilized way to do it.

Instead, we spent the money setting up a heavily armored police organization to forcibly find, process, and detain people who "might" have broken a law. Putting everyone in a detention center doesn't really seem like a great way to speed up the processing time. In the meantime multiple actual US citizens have been killed, detained, and intimidated. Makes you wonder what the actual goal was in the first place.

Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man. Now, back to 2026, the richest person in the world has spent almost $500 million on helping Republicans in the midterms. Clearly him and Trump don't believe too much in the power of the common man's vote.

I understand the point of politicians playing politics, but your accusation requires more than conjecture. I would love to see the ample evidence you reference. Otherwise, what I see are 3 public votes in 2001, 2005, and 2011.

Each time there was one party that voted against it in significantly larger numbers. Sometimes it even cost them their seats because it was such an unpopular stance (i.e. Feingold). In 2011 it was a vote directly against a popular President from their own party. Meanwhile, the party that supposedly has all the "Libertarians" were almost unanimous in support for each vote.

> It's because the overwhelming majority of people, including the large majority of 'educated, "informed', Democrat voters', remain even as of 2026 far too tribal and addicted to cheering for the team they've been cheering for.

It feels like you might be doing the same thing, just in the other direction. Any time a political party does something that is positive for Americans, it should be cheered and rewarded.

I still remember 62 Democrats voting against the Patriot Act while being labelled as traitors. We can cynically call them theatrics, or we could reward them for doing what is right in order to promote them doing more of the right things. The positive response to incentives is a basic and well-studied human psychology.

Sorry, but I don't follow this analogy at all.

Sounds like what you mean is that whatever you define as "actual problems" should be solved? Naturally, you are doing your own virtue signalling by taking such a strong stance on such a simple ask.

> Stop saying 'guys' is performative, it is not moving the needle at all on the big stuff.

The majority of most jobs is performative and doesn't move the needle (mindless "How was your weekend?" chitchat, loads of unnecessary meetings, sales people saying "LFG", etc.). Getting so worked up about this one seems like an odd line in the sand.

> They could be the best people to have on your side.

It might be hard to know if they are so adamant about something so small.

If a person won’t even return your text messages, you don’t ask them to help you move.

> I think pursuing things like the eradication of an expression that is genuinely considered gender neutral by large swaths of people is the sort of thing that loses you goodwill for the big stuff.

On the flip side, someone unwilling to do even the “small stuff” pretty much already lost the goodwill that they would be willing to do the “big stuff.”

Put another way, if you ask someone to take a small step for you, and they refuse, would you feel like they are more or less likely to take a big step?

I think most people would charitably interpret that "everybody" means at least a majority of people. That is what I questioned.

I don't really view internet comments as "strategic" like you. I was simply clarifying that this person's world (social media, news, friends, etc.) may give them the impression that "everybody" is blaming this group, but in reality that isn't true.

> Humans also make shit up all the time.

Kind of like saying something happens "all the time" and sharing a single example from 15 years ago. Not to mention that a private company's HR team is not the government.

No, it was perfectly clear that you simply meant "everybody" that disagrees with you. That said, we know a large percentage of the population agrees with the President's immigrant framing because he was elected President based largely on that premise.

So, lots and lots of people are blaming immigrants for all our problems. I'm not sure rich white men need you to defend them to a random on the internet, they are doing just fine.

If that's the case, you shouldn't use words like everybody, because you don't mean everybody

The rest of your response can be answered in your own words: Oh there are clauses and exceptions to prejudice are there?

EDITED

I would love to see your analysis that proves this is unequivocally worse than the current state.

Is "everybody" doing that, seems like a stretch? In fact, the current US President explicitly blames immigrants for many of our problems.

The Economy - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/trump-somalis...

Affordability - https://www.pbs.org/video/trump-s-message-1765403127/

Crime - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/29/trumps-hate-...

Benefits - https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/10/24/fact-check-tru...

Nobody said that, nor is it relevant. The point is if the food supply is more diversified, we are less exposed to single points of failure.

> Same how you're not a musician just because you had Suno create something.

In this analogy, the person calling themselves a musician would have to be falsely calling themselves a programmer after using AI to code something. The word used here was "tinker" which can be any number of things. One can "tinker" with business ideas, investment theses, hardware designs, economic models, gameplay concepts, baking recipes, brewing formulas, and more.

> Those are not tinkerers, as there's no tinkering involved.

This seems closed minded view of tinkering. There are plenty of ways to tinker aside from just writing code. It could be in driving traffic to a website, selling a product, combining datasets, automating a task, etc.

I personally love economics and have used AI to tinker with combing multiple datasets to create new ways of viewing economic growth at the metro level across variables.

The same logic that has spent decades providing us with poorly planned preemptive attacks and an ever-growing military budget. Meanwhile, the quality-of-life for the citizens who pay for it continues to decline.

> Are US citizens richer than they were before?

Some of them certainly are richer, specifically people with the last name Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/13/trump-presid...

I personally believe the well-sourced journalism explaining how the President ignored the opinions of Government experts to do what he wanted.

> https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-war-warn...

If quitting a job is "performative" what would you consider a "non-performative" act?

Ironically, you are doing your own preaching in your comments. It could even be described as "performative."

Buy an umbrella?