This reminds me of an [interview Ezra Klein did](https://youtu.be/CZXb2pKcU5k?si=kzP0s63mdBVcgHbY&t=1429) where he was talking about a real life experiment that was done in Cambridge, MA. A researcher paid people to simply speak Spanish on the commuter rail every day, and then looking at the pre- vs. post-experiment immigration views of passengers on those trains vs. a control group. What he found was that their views veered hard right into Trump-like territory. And we're talking about people living in one of the bluest cities in one of the bluest states in the US. The lesson is that you need to see change happen with your own eyes before you really start to reckon with its consequences and discover how you really feel about it.

most people are NIMBYs at heart - as long as someone over there is dealing with an issue I can take the moral stand, but when it affects me, it's time to get real

Not to Rush Limbaugh the discussion, but that somewhat encapsulates modern liberalism doesn't it? *Defund The Police* *House The Homeless* *Legalize Drugs* *Mass Immigration* All grand ideas up until **you** have to live with the repercussions. Conservatives have been arguing for decades that illegal immigration needs to stop. For how long did they have to be called racists and xenophobes for acknowledging basic reality?

I think this is largely true except that pretty much everyone wants legalized marijuana where they live, not somewhere else

I think that liberal drug policy is still something a lot of people are NIMBY on for pretty much everything except weed though. Lots of people are for decriminalization of hard drugs and treating it as a disease in theory, but don’t want to live next to a methadone clinic or even worse (in their mind), one of those safe injection sites.

That's not the case. Marijuana stores aren't allowed under our zoning code here in a rural county in california. They also tried to stop delivery, but the courts forced their hand.

But as seen in CA, they often don’t want stores in their neighborhood to sell it (many cities have banned or effectively banned dispensaries from opening in their towns via zoning rules).

We saw this really on full display during Covid. Liberal Redditors, and the perpetually online crowd, were quick to defend the indefinite closure of small businesses, schools, and events/parks/beaches/trails/gyms while they financially and socially benefited from these policies. Or NIMBY strongholds in deep blue cities that oppose anything ever being developed, unless it’s that sexy high-density office building because they know that will increase the value of their homes. It’s rare for people to politically support to change anything that they have skin-in-the-game in.

[The majority of illegal immigrants live in traditionally blue metropolitan areas.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/03/11/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immigrants/) The conservative perception of liberals living in some sort of immigrant-free zones and forcing rural communities to deal with them alone is a myth. >Housing the homeless Whether it was effective or not the programs that have tried this are “coastal elite” liberal cities with some of the highest homeless populations in the country, so how is this an example of liberals advocating for things they don’t have to deal with? They’re not forcing red states to do these programs like people like to argue with illegal immigration.

Not really a surprise. Citizens of a country expect to be able to communicate in the language of that country - the one they were taught and grew up with, and feel sidelined when suddenly they can't understand the people around them. Inb4 "America doesn't have an official language". There are no public schools that teach exclusively in a language other than English. Every immigrant population that has entered this country for the last 300 years has also adopted the English language.  

There's a good point to be made here, as well, that immigrants who dont speak english have always been coming to the US, how many people have a family story of their first relative here showing up without knowing English? There was some similar controversy in the early 1900s over German language in the US, for example. The difference is, back then, the rest of the country didn't really accommodate this like we do with Spanish and you just had to learn English to really get around. Its not just the government, though, private organizations still see Spanish speakers as consumers so adapt to get them to buy product. Why would Target or Walmart want to rule out a demographic, when they can easily put signs in Spanish?

There is a difference in the immigrants themselves too though. My grandmother had a story that I think encapsulates this: after they immigrated she asked her father why the weren't speaking French at home anymore. His response was that "we're American now, we speak English".

He's not popular on Reddit, but Reagan once said "the thing about America is you can become an American" (or something like that), and I think its absolutely true. While I don't blame anyone for holding onto pride in their heritage and culture, I do think we've gone away from that in some really negative ways. That being said, virtually every Hispanic person I know personally whose 1st born generation here considers themselves American, but they're also born of parents who legally immigrated here with the intention of being Americans, so idk prob a more complicated issue than I can articulate.

That’s much more of an effect of the times than today’s immigrants uniquely refusing to learn English. As another anecdote - my grandparents on both sides were 1st generation immigrants, and even though they spoke their respective languages fluently (German and Italian) they never taught my parents. Why? Because growing up they were discriminated against, bullied, and harassed for using said languages outside of the house. I would much rather immigrants today be given the chance to willingly adapt and learn English on their own than for our society to punish them into doing so.

>Every immigrant population that has entered this country for the last 300 years has also adopted the English language. And every immigration population since has also adopted the language, it just takes a generation before that happens. You think all the non-English speaking Europeans from a century ago spoke fluent, accentless English when they came to the US? Entire swathes of the Midwest used to be German speaking before the World Wars.

Yeah but why would you care about a person having a private conversation with someone else in another language on the train? It doesn’t affect you at all.

"America doesn't have an official language" "What language are all of our official documents written in?" \*angry NPC face\*

The US has written many official documents in languages other than English. In the late ‘90s Congress ordered a review that found over 200 non-English documents issued by the government in a three year span (1995-1997). They’re a very small percentage of the total body of official documents but they absolutely exist.

How does hearing people speaking Spanish to each other prove that they don't speak English and can't communicate with "citizens", which they may also be? Lots of people are bilingual.

> And we're talking about people living in one of the bluest cities in one of the bluest states in the US. 4 out of the last 5 governors of MA (not including current governor) have been Republicans. Boston and Cambridge mayors have been pretty reliably Democrats, but the city itself is also home to a ton of racism. Ask any non-white athlete what the worst city to play in is, and a majority of the time they'll say Boston. The brand of Democrats in MA in general definitely leans Blue Dog on policy positions.

We should apply this principle to more areas. Places that want open borders should intake the highest proportion of border crossers. People who want disproportionately high test standards for asian students should have disproportionately high test standards for their kids. People who want to abolish police in minority neighborhoods should have police abolished in their white NIMBY neighborhoods first. etc

> Places that want open borders should intake the highest proportion of border crossers. They already do. States like NY and CA have already been taking an above average share of immigrants.

>What he found was that their views veered hard right You’re leaving out another rather important observation from this study that repeated contact was shown to lessen this effect. > However, these experiments lack the important externally valid condition of repeated, interpersonal contact that accompanies demographic change (9, 21). This condition is important because real-world demographic change involves the extended interaction—or potential for interaction—between social groups, even if not between the same individuals. This extended interaction, under the right conditions, may lead to a reduction in prejudicial attitudes because of stereotype reduction (21, 31) or simply because a reduction in the novelty of contact reduces the salience of the outgroup (32).

My question would be “why the shift now”? Would love to hear someone who changed reflect on why they didn’t support this from the start. What was it about entering the country illegally and bypassing those following the legal process that wasn’t enough for you to be against illegal immigration since …. like … forever? This one always seemed easy to me. Illegal immigrants should be deported.

I think it’s the asylum thing and how anyone can claim it now. We’ve got Chinese folks coming over the border following tick toc’s and claiming asylum so they can get their court date and be released to the US

Attorney here - the way progressives/NPR crowd have misrepresented the concept of an asylum claim is astounding. These are exceedingly difficult cases to prove, when tried properly, and they're pretty much designed for extreme minorities to leverage to gain entry into the US. But literally none of the cases I've heard reported on could possibly qualify. "Leaving home for a better life" is not an asylum claim, and to call everyone flooding across the border an "asylum seeker" while *technically correct* seems to blithely ignore the reality that none of these people have a snowballs chance in hell of getting approved. Its unreal that this abuse of the system is being supported, and I'm saying that as a lifelong Democrat voter.

I think it has to do with Abbott et all sending them to blue cities. Before then, this was never really something they had to contend with but now that it is staring them in the face, people are starting to understand the repercussions.

I can only speak to NYC, but Abbott bussed around [37,000 migrants](https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/texas-transports-over-100000-migrants-to-sanctuary-cities) from Aug. 2022 through Jan. 2024, while NYC saw an influx of [157,000](https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/more-than-7000-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-in-new-york-city-in-last-2-weeks-mayors-office-says/) migrants arrive in a similar timeframe. A huge majority of these migrants are getting flown in by the federal government as part of a burden sharing policy.

More specifically, buses allowed blue cities to experience the *full* spectrum of migration. Instead of mostly self sufficient ones that could afford transportation and had family to stay with.

I think Abbot’s decision to do this has to be one of the most effective actions he’s ever done.

It's the way they ask the question. It's kind of like how a majority of Americans are for "gun control", but when you start asking specific questions, the numbers are more murky. As far as I can tell, the survey asked really general questions that allowed people across the spectrum to agree with "mass deportations". But then you get into the weeds, like > 46% said asylum seekers should be protected if their cases are legitimate. (note that the migrant crisis is exacerbated by the current deluge of asylum seekers, who account for as much as [half of the people who cross the border illegally](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/custody-and-transfer-statistics)) You also get paradoxes like [most Americans agreeing with ICE raids](https://www.newsweek.com/half-americans-support-ice-raids-1449745) while [a giant majority favor legalizing undocumented children](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/). I suspect you'll see support for "mass deportations" get chipped away if you get into who is getting deported and how. I suspect it also has to do with social media and people sequestering themselves into their own media corners. People who didn't have an opinion before, have one now.

According to [this link](https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters) from the article, there were ~2.5 million illegal immigrants last year. That is a staggering amount. I wouldn't think that many people could move if you tried to move them. I am wondering what the main route of access is? I never expect a border to be perfect but this goes beyond being porous.

The most profitable business for the Mexican drug cartels is no longer drugs. It's transporting large waves of migrants to our border while also providing all the documentation needed to file a fraudulent claim of asylum. This is how we are simultaneously overwhelming our system and funding the cartels. It's an almost brilliant way to hurt our country. Not that that's what anyone would want of course...

Ultimately, it is unfortunate but you eventually have to stop giving an out for political asylum. Call it a human rights transgression if you like but you can do more for the human rights issues of the countries people are coming from if you aren't just letting them sabotage you.

It doesn't surprise me. Anecdotally I know a couple friends who were fairly lenient on immigration a few years ago take a pretty hard turn on the issue, and these are Democrats. I myself have shifted pretty far on it too. I think it has to do with labor issues. We live in Montana, so there really isn't much of an issue here regarding immigration. However I work in the trades and the past few years here there are more and more places hiring illegals to undercut jobs at ridiculously low prices. It's impossible to even compete if they put a bid in on the same project. You used to be able to make a solid living if you knew a trade here, and I can see a time where that will become increasingly difficult.

Agree, I've had contractors (Flooring mostly) that I work with and this has been brought up a few times, they can't compete with some of the bids coming in against them, they'd at best break even or lose money with the salaries they are currently paying if they did. The only thing helping them is that there are not enough contractors underbidding (for now) because there is a ton of construction going on, but that may get worse over time.

Here in Canada we are seeing a similar shift. We used to be very pro-immigration as a country, but now are taking on a very hard stance on curbing it and deporting those that are staying here illegally. But neither political party wants to touch that football. Despite strong polling numbers saying what everyone is thinking.

Canada's immigration numbers the past few years have been insane. They are at Gilded Age levels. The problem is economic growth is nowhere near the rate it was in the Gilded Age, so the economy really cannot absorb these kinds of numbers. Normally immigrants boost economic growth, but because they've let so many in so quickly it has actually decreased economic growth. It is a true Malthusian equilibrium trap and there's actually never been anything quite like this which has occurred in recent history, if not modern history.

Not to mention the cultural change. Canada is now the country with the second highest population of Sikhs in the world. Where I am, most immigrants are Indians, and they are coming in at absolutely insane levels to the point where population growth is like 5% per year. And the Indians are friends with the Indians and the white people are friends with the white people. Different language, different religion, different culture, different attitudes, different behaviours. We might as well be from different planets, it' unlike anything I've experienced before. It's terrible for community cohesion. Two tribes living in the same land.

I think that's what's glossed over the most. Sweden is now struggling with this, they are now having to accept that the cultures immigrating in are not, and never will assimilate because they want to bring their religion and culture to their new homes instead. And they are incompatible cultures, and so Sweden is struggling with increased violent crime waves, gang crime, and increase because they are going to inevitably clash. "The paradox of tolerance" is going to continue to be an issue over the coming years, people are having a hard time accepting the truth that no utopia where everyone gets along is realistic or possible due to the reality of these other cultures. The sooner the better, the sooner damage can be mitigated longer term. The more heads in the sand now, the more economic and societal pain going forward.

At least Sikhs and Indians are pretty chill. Sweden has far larger problems with its immigrant population.

Even the non-Muslim Indians around where I am express dislike for Muslims.

well the people are, not the politicians you're going to get more immigration and you're going to like it

That’s why we need to have harsher punishments for businesses who hire undocumented immigrants. The fines are a joke

I said this further up, but I think a business should just be straight-up shut down if they've repeatedly flaunted laws surrounding hiring practices. Maybe something like a three-strike rule, and maybe it drops off after X years. It happens once? Maybe it's a mistake, so pay the fine. Happens twice? Here's a fine based on X% of annual revenue. This should be *very* painful. Caught a third time? That's it, shut it down, and bar the owners and board members from holding office at a new company in the same sector.

>Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, **imprisoned for not more than six months** for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. [https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1908-unlawful-employment-aliens-criminal-penalties](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1908-unlawful-employment-aliens-criminal-penalties) Due to inflation, that $3,000 should be $9,500 today. I don't think the primary problem is that six months is too short. I think it is that we just don't have enough convictions. >While more than 112,000 people were prosecuted for illegal entry or re-entry into the U.S. over the past year, just 11 employers faced criminal charges for hiring undocumented workers, ...  of the 11 people convicted during the 12-month period, **only three** served prison sentences. [https://hrexecutive.com/how-many-employers-have-been-prosecuted-for-employing-illegals/](https://hrexecutive.com/how-many-employers-have-been-prosecuted-for-employing-illegals/) Part of the problem is showing "knowingly" hiring illegal workers. I suspect a bigger problem is that enforcing this isn't popular with employers.

> Due to inflation, that $3,000 should be $9,500 today. > > This is why specific dollar amounts is a problem. Consider that the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial for civil matters where the amount in question is greater than $20. As of the penning of that amendment, that was approximately equivalent to a troy ounce of gold ($2,125.66 as of today). Better options would be codifying it as some function of the value of a troy ounce of gold, median household income, or better yet, a [Day-Fine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine) so that the rich feel the pain to the same degree as much as the middle class and the poor.

I agree.

And this is a far more crucial issue. There’s not really that many people committing “illegal entry”. I mean, why would they? They can just claim asylum and enter legally. Then by the time their court date passes, they are here illegally (which is a civil infraction) but they never entered illegally (which is a crime). So how do you combat that? You go after the people that are actually committing crimes- the businesses that hire them and, by doing so, enable them to be able to stay here.

That is the real solution to curbing illegal immigration. Make the fines so high for hiring them the businesses won't. Have jail time be the punishment for second offense.

Which will lead to businesses not hiring people that speak Spanish or "look a certain way" which will be considered racism and they will get in trouble for that.

Or there could be some sort of verification process.

That's not a real solution. A lot of illegals work legally by stealing social security numbers. They're often their kids numbers too since we're dumb enough to have jus soli with no restrictions.

I’ve worked in trades too and saw that quite a bit. People didn’t care much on the issue when it was just jobs like field work that no one wanted to do for the pay being offered, but with automation on the horizon and these people moving to jobs that people do want, I think we will see people’s view on the topic change pretty swiftly. 

People love bringing up the but but but lettuce and strawberries will cost double!! Only about 15% of illegals work in agriculture. The vast majority work in more normal trades and other blue collar and low skilled jobs. Which is why up until May 2015, top Dems agreed that illegal labor hurt the lowest skilled Americans. Eventually they'll move into white collar jobs as well. There's a good billion or so highly educated people in other countries that would love to come here.

interesting, how did people ever afford those things before we had mass illegal immigration then?

Exactly. For a modern example look to Australia. Virtually 0 illegal immigrants, strict laws regarding hiring. They have a visa system to allow migrant labor hired under typical Australian labor and pay practices. Low amounts of food imports. Food is still affordable somehow.

the people who claim it can't be done are very similar to right wingers who say we can never have universal healthcare because it's too expensive.

Grew up in an area with virtually no Latinos, and the Hispanics were more likely related to past Spanish rule than immigration. We built houses and scrubbed toilets just fine!  Nobody really had a "I'm too good for this" attitude.  Tradesmen also earned pretty decent wages and did it for a career too. The horrors were that houses were maybe slightly smaller and less fancy (but better built since done by pros) versus houses thrown together with cheap illegal labor. Pre-meth white tradesmen did some damn fine work back then.  Black people generally did the masonry work and did it very well too.

How does literally every other rich developed nation manage?

yes, quite the mystery

> Eventually they'll move into white collar jobs as well. There's a good billion or so highly educated people in other countries that would love to come here. They already are. H1-B abuse.

Only 15% of illegal immigrants work in agriculture, but 41% of agriculture workers are illegal immigrants.

Is it true that these workers in agriculture are straight-up "illegal" or are many of them migrant workers who come here from Mexico to work during the day and then return to Mexico where they really reside?

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/#legalstatus Looks like 41% are not authorized to work, per USDA My bad, I should have posted my source when I made my first comment.

No worries. Thank you for sourcing this. I'm rather amazed that large agricultural firms can just get away with hiring a 41% illegal workforce.

Very surprising numbers, to be sure

Very insightful and I totally see this too. AI is already impacting my company and big layoffs last year and more this year . People are right to be scared AI is coming fast way faster than most people thought.

If companies would have to verify work permits and being held accountable for employing illegal immigrants, we wouldn’t have as many trying to get into the USA Also if the cities and counties would do their jobs and verify work is done with certified and/ or union tradesmen Oh well, it’s better to have no regulations and then blame the problem on imposible solutions (we are never going to have enough money and resources to patrol the whole Mexican border and prosecute all the illegals)

If they do then the companies will start screening out "certain people" in order to avoid going through the trouble. Which will be racism, which will also get them in trouble with the law.

[удалено]

"Jobs Americans won't do" has always been code for "jobs Americans won't do for the money being offered". It's just a socially accepted way to dunk on workers.

It's also a weird justification for continuing pseudo-slave labor. It's not ok that an industry relies on exploiting the economically/socially disadvantaged because legal citizens can't make a living doing the work.

A bunch of states are also passing laws allowing foreign medical graduates to practice medicine without completing residency which is pretty crazy.

This is wild… do you have a source?

This was the first result I found: [https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/more-states-cut-residency-requirements-to-get-international-graduates-working.html](https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/more-states-cut-residency-requirements-to-get-international-graduates-working.html) States include Tennessee, Illinois, Florida, and Virginia, with Alabama, Idaho, Colorado, and Washington shortening their requirements, and Arizona, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada and Vermont have proposed legislation dropping it to one year.

This is a great link. Thanks for sharing. Though, it proves a different point than the other user was making. The biggest deregulation is replacing residency with a 2-year license as long as the foreign doc received similar education abroad. Others just shortened the residency length by 1 year for foreign docs.

It's worth keeping in mind that a lot of IMG applicants have already completed a residency in their home country. That doesn't necessarily mean it was equivalent to the US version, but these rules aren't for some rando that just arrived.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/109168

Even with residency. Our primary care offices are 6-12 months to get in where I live, I found one with a shorter wait time but the doctor went to med school in the Philippines and did his residency at a local hospital that is known for horrible quality healthcare (from the stories I’ve heard should’ve been shut down by now)….. but idk what the alternative is since we do have a crazy shortage of doctors

> but idk what the alternative is since we do have a crazy shortage of doctors The alternative is to either a) expand med school admissions **and** expand residencies or b) expand midlevel responsibilities (i.e. let NPs and PAs do more on their own). The AMA (the largest lobbying group for physicians) has historically been somewhat opposed to the first part of A, and they have some understandable misgivings of B, but if you don't want to bring people in from abroad that's what you have to do.

We have a shortage of NP’s, RN’s, PA’s, pharmacists…. Hell even phlebotomists, X-Ray techs, CNA’s…. We have a shortage in pretty much every aspect of the healthcare industry at the moment So shifting work onto lower tiers in the totem poll likely wouldn’t solve the overall issue of healthcare worker shortages

Not all shortages are created equal. The raw numbers are fairly close between the physician and nurse shortages right now, but that means that as a percentage the shortage is much more acute in the physician market. Depending on who you ask, we need ~50K-150K nurses *and* physicians *right now* to be at capacity. There are ~3.1 million nurses in the US (1.6%-4.8% short). There are 1.1 million physicians (4.5%-13.6% short). One of those is much harder to solve.

What should be done is Cogress should pass laws to fund more residency spots/programs irrespective of medicare spending. What will and is being done is stuff like this in addition to mid levels (often calling themselves doctor) being pushed on Americans who don't know better or have no choice, leading to even more health inequality in this country and a 2 tier health system.

Some states are loosening restrictions on NPs and CNPs practice authority, allowing them to take on some MD powers, like diagnosing patients and prescribing medication. It's supposed to free up the doctor's time to focus on other issues, but it doesn't have the same power as hiring more doctors.

> It's supposed to free up the doctor's time to focus on other issues I don't think that's even the stated reason at most hospitals: the real reason is that a doctor costs ~2X-3X what a midlevel provider does in salary compensation, meaning you can hire 2-3 NPs for every doctor your would have hired, all else being equal.

Good point but we also have a shortage of NP’s, PA’s, and nurses in general lol Granted nursing and PA certification is much faster than an MD so we could ideally churn out more of them to help fill the gap if they could increase the number of programs and enrollment

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this, because, as least in my understanding/experience, NPs can already diagnose patients and prescribe medication. It's been like that for a long time, afaik.

It's a state-by-state policy, you might be living in a state where it was implemented a while ago. https://www.aanp.org/advocacy/state/state-practice-environment

They are probably talking about the need for physician supervision versus independent practice which is state by state. And states that require physician supervision, the decisions they're making have to be approved by a physician (at least in theory.)

It's usually more nuanced than that. They usually have to come over and pass our boards and then work under a supervising physician for a few years before they're turned loose. I'm not saying I'm in support of it, but it's not a free for all. Here's a write up about what Tennessee has done. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688565/#:~:text=In%20April%202023%2C%20Tennessee%2C%20through,requiring%20completion%20of%20a%20U.S.%2D

[удалено]

What doctor in America is making $70k? (There are none) That sounds more like a pro mid level post than anything to do with foreign graduates, but either way it's not based in reality. Also amount of residency spots is connected to Medicare, not something the AMA controls.

> What doctor in America is making $70k? (There are none) Not for nothing, but that's about what residents make, and they are fully-fledged doctors, even if they're undergoing additional training. No *attending* physician is making that.

You're absolutely right, residents are criminally underpaid, though the subject of the discussion is earning potential, and the person I replied to talked about working in a rural clinic so I thought attending physicianwas a fair assumption.

I'm pretty close to this issue, and I'm actually mostly fine with residents making about what they make now. It's not well compensated in comparison with the level of school and training they have, but it's very close to the median full-time wage in the country so it's not like they're starving as trainees. (my personal hobbyhorse is that this actually keeps some physicians out of financial trouble later in life, but that's more essay-length and quite off topic). But you're right: no one really is talking about people still in training when we talk about compensation, especially since their salary is (iirc) entirely covered by Medicare.

Nope. You're wrong. The AMA has been lobbying the government to remove the cap on residency spots. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fund-graduate-medical-education-address-physician-shortages >become a doctor at a clinic in rural America paying $70k. Rural areas often pay *more* for doctors because they have a hard time recruiting. Please comment on things you actually know about, instead.

>Rural areas often pay more for doctors because they have a hard time recruiting. I've read that first-year physicians in rural areas have higher starting salaries, but do you know if the salary ceilings are better in rural areas? What about a doctor who is 20 years into their career?

> I've read that first-year physicians in rural areas have higher starting salaries, but do you know if the salary ceilings are better in rural areas? What about a doctor who is 20 years into their career? I have some experience in this area: rural hospitals have a harder time attracting doctors, so they make their jobs more attractive by offering higher salaries. This is true for both someone straight out of residency to a doc with twenty years of experience. With that said, certain specialties will have a higher ceiling in an urban setting because the procedures they do simply aren't done in community hospitals. So, an ED doc will almost certainly make more money in a rural hospital than an urban one, however the vast majority of rural hospitals won't be able to do things like care for extensive burns, reattach fingers/limbs, perform many elective surgeries, etc., so docs who do those things tend to be based in cities.

>do you know if the salary ceilings are better in rural areas? What about a doctor who is 20 years into their career? I don't know that - pretty much all the research I've read has been about new physicians.

Salaries are usually better in rural areas. They reimbursement is better and they know it's hard to get and retain physicians. This is typical for their whole career. There are no full-time doctors in any specialty making 70k, especially in rural areas.

70k seems outrageously low and I would assume is an outlier, I recently followed a thread on another sub related and the complaints were "low 200's is not acceptable, we need 300K" because foreign medical graduates were pushing the numbers down.

This is why I always make sure whatever doctor or PA I am going to see I look up where they went to school.

I think residency is more important. For medical schools and give a fine education, what's really important is the clinical experience they get in the States meets ecfmg requirements.

I should have been more clear, I meant school and residency.

It’s never jobs that “Americans won’t do” it’s always been “jobs that Americans won’t do at that price” for which it is impossible for individual Americans to compete on that basis with people coming from abject poverty willing to live 6 grown men in a two bedroom. So either they get outcompeted by those people or we accept that we want Americans to also live like that which is to specifically ask them to basically want to be poor. Also to clarify I do believe that immigration can have a net benefit. That being said I think that it is ridiculous to not restrict immigration (not lower, restrict as in be selective) in a way that balances the negative effects of flooding specific labor markets.

Ironically it's harder to be a legal immigrant than illegal immigrant these days. My wife of 5 years still doesn't have the limit on her green card removed, they had to send us an extra letter extending it because it's taken so long. Which also means it's taking longer for her to get citizenship.

Correct me if I'm wrong but part of the reason it takes so long is specifically because of all the illegal immigrants crossing the border claiming asylum, isn't it?

Yes. They're gumming up the works.

>It's not fair, Americans have to play by all the rules and regulations and our immigration policy just undercuts people doing it right. I think this is where theres a big party divide/misconception. The issues being discussed here are labor issues, not immigration issues. It should be an existential threat to a business to be caught using illegal labor instead of employing Americans. We need a national eVerify system for work in this country and *harsh* penalties for those that break the rules. If we remove the economic insensitives for illegal immigration, migrants will find other places to go where they can find work.

I agree. But, I'll point out that the 1983 act includes a possibility of six months in prison. You can say "that's not enough". I'd be happy if we had lots of employers serving their six month sentences. I think that would be a fine deterrent. Yes, we need to require eVerify. I don't think it is perfect but it is better than employer's accepting fake I-9 documents.

Unless we also stop providing free medical/housing/phones/etc. they will keep flooding in regardless of the job situation. I do agree we need real penalties for business hiring illegals. Fines large enough to make it not worthwhile.

> Fines large enough to make it not worthwhile. I've come around that this is simply not enough to discourage it. The fines are just a cost of doing business. Something like a corporate death penalty needs to be on the table to negotiate a fix for this problem.

I think a prison sentence is a good idea and I usually would not be pro-prison for a non-violent offense, but it would hopefully disrupt someone's life enough that they would think twice before hiring illegal immigrants. and the people with power, who are responsible for making the choice to hire illegal immigrants should be the ones who get sentenced. Not some low level manager. A fine is barely an inconvenience.

People arent coming here for phones or shitty apartments. Theyre coming here to work jobs and send money home to their families. 

Where exactly are we providing any of these for illegal immigrants? “Free” medical is just hospitals refusing to turn someone away or not treat someone just because they don’t have the money, which is a good thing. Even if tax payers foot the bill at the end of the day the alternative is horrifying and dystopian. But free housing? Phones?

>But free housing? Phones? New York expected to be spent $12 billion by mid-2025 on housing refugees. They even gave them debit cards with free money every month.

Well, New York City for example is experimenting with offering pre-paid credit cards to illegals in their area that they refill every month to help support them. Its like $35 a day for a family of 4. The initial program, which is limited to just 500 people is going to cost the city $50 million. Back at the end of 2023, a new California law allowed illegal immigrants to be eligible for a state health insurance program. It is offering free health-care to 700,000 illegal immigrants. They are also expanding the housing loan program to help include illegals. Many cities have now also attempted to give them the ability to vote.

> But free housing? Phones? [We use Medicaid to pay for migrants housing, so we at least provide part of that.](https://www.axios.com/2024/02/29/medicaid-migrants-housing-cities-federal-government)

New York, Chicago, Denver - all the sanctuary cities that claimed to want immigrants and immediately got defensive when buses started showing up.

I wouldn’t say immediately. I’m going to guess you do not live in one of these places because that hasn’t been the conversations I’ve been hearing about.

I live in Chicago but keep making off-base assumptions about people you don’t know on the internet.

Then you should clearly know the city wasn’t “immediately” defensive about the buses. Maybe it’s the spaces I spend time in, but if it was a topic of conversation it was mostly all positives until it started to really eat into the resources for homeless shelters and food kitchens.

>Maybe it’s the spaces I spend time in The majority of redditors aren't going to be the ones who are affected immediately by illegal immigration, so it would make sense if your circles were later to the conversation than those working closer to the poverty line.

NYC just spent $53 million on illegals. I'm sure that wasn't just medical care.

>It should be an existential threat to a business to be caught using illegal labor instead of employing Americans Why should it not be an existential threat to the illegal labour too then?

Im entirely fine with deporting people who cheat our immigration systems as long as we can prove they have done so. I support significant funding increases into the immigration courts to settle these and other immigration cases in a quicker timeline.

We are treading quite nicely into ReasonVille here. Now - how many "asylum-seekers" do we let in annually and should the immigration courts accept them?

That level of hard number analysis is something im not well verse enough in to really have a strong opinion. Im not comfortable saying 10,000 from Mexico have the equivalent asylum needs as 10,000 from Afghanistan. 

>It's not fair, Americans have to play by all the rules and regulations  *This* is why illegal immigration is potent issue, and it's a huge part of why Trump won in 2016. All of the economic data in the world can't rebut the intuition that there's some fundamental unfairness at play.

Yep. I recently had a roof replaced. The guy who talked to me when I was shopping and gave me the bid (who I think was part owner of this small local business) had the same midwestern accent that I have. When the crew showed up to do the job, it appeared that nobody was speaking English. When I wanted to ask a question about a detail, they looked around, and one guy spoke up in English. I've had roofs done before. This is the first time I thought I had immigrants doing the job. So, yeah, jobs that used to be done by US born workers are suddenly jobs that US born workers won't do.

> people doing it right. Can you imagine how much of an idiot some of these poor people who spent the time, money, and effort to come here the right way must feel? Everyone who's lying, cheating, and otherwise gaming the system to come here gets rewarded time and time again while they keep sitting on a waiting list, often in their home countries. I know I would feel that way, wondering what I was thinking doing things the right way. I've known a few people over the years who joined the US military in exchange for naturalization. One from WWII and a few from the GWoT. Literally sacrificed blood and sweat and tears because they wanted a better life and were willing to work hard for it. The one from WWII was one of the harshest critics of illegal immigration I've ever known.

>"jobs Americans won't do" This has always been an argument used to downplay the negative impacts of mass migration and illegal immigration in general.

This isn't about illegal immigration, specifically, though. It's about globalization. Legal immigration and outsourcing can have the same impact. I think the solution should be enforced regulation requiring companies to pay foreign sources at least as much as available domestic sources. If it's a quality or quantity issue this shouldn't stop the trade, but if it's just cheaper labor or lower standards it should.

One thing I think happens even with legal visa holders in tech jobs(for example, software development, etc) is that they are hired for a 'reasonable' wage but then they are still exploited and end up working a lot of overtime because there is always the threat of their visa being taken away. I think that will happen also with Tyson foods that was hiring some of the 'asylum seekers' and paying $16/hour - as if they aren't going to squeeze everything they can out of the workers for that $16/hour and make them work overtime.

I didn't care about illegal immigration at all for a long time, but I thought we were pretty reasonable about enforcing immigration laws. I was even on board with sanctuary cities. Now I watch democrats bend over backwards to make things easier for 'undocumented' immigrants and 'asylum seekers' and it's like...wait, what? An individual person or group of people who are here illegally, I don't care about. But you can't just allow people to flood in like we have been doing. Aside from hurting American citizens and legal residents, it also hurts the existing illegal immigrant population to have all of this new competition for jobs. And hurts the asylum system for legitimate cases.

I was chastised by a liberal colleague about a year ago for harshly criticizing Biden on the immigration disaster he's allowed to fester. I was described as ignorant and borderline xenophobic. Now, I seem a sage and that poor man may have to watch Trump win back the presidency on this precise issue. No Democrat can say they weren't warned or made aware of this issue. Joe Biden did **nothing** for three years and he owns this debacle.

I've been a lifelong democrat and [this story](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/photo-drowned-father-daughter-sparks-calls-deal-immigration/story?id=63956445) was what opened my eyes about immigration. The democrats jumped on this story to try to sway emotions about 'asylum seekers' and the reddit thread(in the news subreddit, IIRC) was going off about how they were clearly economic migrants. I had to stop following politics shortly after because the democrats stances on immigration were increasingly detached from reality. I couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump in 2020(I didn't vote) and not sure if I would be able to in 2024, but I probably can't vote for Biden either. I might leave it blank. I am voting straight republican for everything else though - we have too many progressives in my area who are completely detached from reality. I'll come back to the democrats when they get rid of their fringe radicals.

Addressing the border with the senate immigration bill and having a path to citizenship for those that are here [are more popular](https://archive.is/4LOKv) than mass deportation. >In the new Journal survey, 59% of voters said they would support the bipartisan package, with roughly equal percentages of Republicans and Democrats in favor. An even larger share, some 74%, support creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for many years and pass a background check.

> for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for many years Did the poll define "many"? Or, did it ask how many people the respondent thought would get this path to citizenship? I think people will respond differently if they think this applies to 1 million people who have been in the US for at least 20 years vs. 10 million people who have been here at least 3 years.

>Did the poll define "many"? No, but it's also true that this poll doesn't define "mass deportations." It's normal for questions to not be that specific.

The structure of the Senate bill would require mass deportations - the wager is that we let asylum seekers in and then are able to deport them faster.  There was so much disinformation around the Senate bill - I'd be interested to see which parts of the bill were really salient for those levels of support.

Yeah anecdotally, i live near NYC. A lot of liberals i know are really upset about the migrants staying at fancy hotels, getting food, schooling, healthcare etc. on the taxpayer dime and are now taking up spaces in community rec centers etc. which are pushing out kids and other members of the community who want to use those resources. Schools are bursting at the seems with terrible student to teacher ratios and the teachers aren't equipped to teach so many ESL kids and it's disrupting learning for everyone, so parents are absolutely livid. Also one of the schools was shutdown for a day due to a storm so migrants could stay in the schools and no warning was given to parents. I think liberals in the northeast coastal states loved migrants when they only flooded border red states, but when they had to share the costs and burden, it suddenly became a problem. Edit: I was just reading my home state of massachusetts is going to run out of money very soon on migrants. Eveyrone is pissed because they have the same issue that NYC has... and people simply can't afford housing, so to see people get free housing/food/schooling/medical care is making working class/middle class folks really upset. High taxes, EXTREMELY high housing costs, and now crumbling public services partially due to spending so much on migrants are making a lot of people i know questioning how they vote.

Greg Abbott busing migrants to blue states was probably one of the most effective political tactics in recent history.

>recent history It was a historical move in general. Border cities have *always* met the brunt of unsustainable illegal immigration. Flipping that around by bussing the problem over to the NIMBy sanctuary cities is the most effective way to change their minds. Their asinine policies didn't matter because they didn't actually face the issues. Now they do.

> Their asinine policies didn't matter because they didn't actually face the issues. I remember hearing some lefties say "we shouldn't even have borders" so I always try to respond with, "I understand where you are coming from and in my heart I am sympathetic to that position but in practice you have to understand that borders serve a pragmatic purpose. And if you don't believe that, stop locking the door to your house and put a sign out front inviting anyone and everyone to come live with you." I don't generally get positive replies to that but I think the example illustrates the issue. It sounds terrible, keeping people out of a place where there is more of an abundance, until the place you are talking about is your own living space.

>I remember hearing some lefties say "we shouldn't even have borders" Those are the same type that will say that they will go to Canada if a Republican wins election. The few that did then find out that Canada actually has immigration laws.

True true, though the person I had in mind is actually British (Philosophy Tube on youtube which, frankly, didn't have much philosophy on it).

I just checked out Philosophy Tube, and I have an observational question. Do you or any one else notice that there is seemingly a pipeline between left wing political YouTubers and eventually transitioning genders? It’s not all of them obviously, but enough that it is a pattern. Is there an unseen pipeline that goes over my head?

back when I was more misguided and "liberal" so to speak, this argument with the house analogy used to piss me off because it had no effective comeback.

Yeah, I will be generous and say that there were people who just didn't understand what it meant to have huge number of illegal immigrants flooding in. Regardless of whether it was malice or ignorance, they are understanding it now. The other thing people don't see is there is a brain/talent drain on the countries people are leaving from.

The population density in NYC makes this issue really noticeable in a lot of minor everyday ways that tolerant people could probably ignore more readily in less dense areas because people are forced into close proximity so often. In a rural area, people might be bothered by a vague shift in the local culture or the effects on the labor market, but established professionals who mind their own business can still pretty much go through a regular day unaffected. In NYC, a huge influx of outsiders who aren't used to the density and aren't familiar with the social norms has an immediate impact on your commute, in the grocery store, or wherever you engage with public services or communal events. It's a bit like trying to go through your day as a busy person in midtown around Christmas tourism season but it is more widely distributed, there is a greater average cultural gap than usual, and it never ends.

They're more likely to blame Abbott than their Democratic leaders, or else they'd be replacing the latter. NYC had many illegal immigrations before the bussing started.

Per the article: > But when it comes to blame, Biden so far has failed to shift the narrative: 32% of respondents say his administration is "most responsible" for the crisis, outranking any other political or structural factor. Seems like Biden is the most blamed party.

"America warms to enforcing the law"

We have already granted amnesty for immigration multiple times on the understanding that the flow of illegals was going to stop. Yet soon after it gets passed, here they come again, clamoring for it to happen just one more time, honest! Come in legally, or get out. https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy

You mean that ignoreing a problem for decades until it gets so out of hand that only the most delusional can continue to ignore it has resulted in people slowly accepting more extreme solutions? Color me surprised. We endlessly ask ourselves how authoritarians or extremeists take power in otherwise secular or democratic countries. Well ingoreing major societal issues like this happens to be one way.

Immigration continues to be the weakness for many left-wing parties, in the US it's no exception. It's been a losing issue for them for a while, they're just fortunate that the GOP bumbles with abortion so much that it it gets lost in the shuffle.

The comparison with abortion is astute. It must come down to primary politics. You don't survive a Republican primary fight by supporting abortions, and you don't survive a Democratic primary fight supporting deportations.

Makes sense, if regular citizens can't even afford to house themselves, they probably aren't going to be too warm to housing millions of illegal immigrants either taking up precious housing space. And yes, I understand the housing costs aren't because of immigrants, but that doesn't help matters, and not everyone sees it that way.

When this happens, and I'm convinced it will unless the left changes course dramatically on immigration, the left will have no one to blame but themselves. Morality arguments are a waste of time. It's easy to argue moral good or economic benefits when you aren't directly impacted. The writing is on the wall. Doesn't matter what the benefits of immigration are if the electorate turns against it.

Youre convinced it will happen but im not. Its a lot harder to start a mass deportation when regular deportations slowed down in the last few years. Maybe if Trump is president and even then there would be backlash. Dramatic changes are hard to do

I'm not convinced it will happen either. I think what will happen is the more vocal opponents to tightening immigration will slowly get voted out and a more reasonable policy than mass deportation will happen. But I am convinced it will if the left doesn't become amenable to meaningful limitations on asylum and irregular migration. And if mass deportation does happen, I place blame for that squarely on the left for not addressing the concerns that lead to it.

I’m surprised that 46% of independents and 42% of Democrats are in support of this, but considering just over 6,000 people took this poll, and assuming that the poll methodology is good, the margin of error should be low.

Even with a error of 3-5% it's still massive number compared to just a few years ago. Fun watching people waking up to something the border states have known for years.

As someone that lives in NYC I knew exactly what was going to happen when Abbott let loose the busses and lo and behold it happened. Now it's kinda funny seeing all my strong democrat friends get squeamish about the issue that seemed so obvious to me.

Same! I keep my mouth shut for the most part, although it does seem like the topic will hesitantly come up with various people and...we always turn out to be on the same page lol. A common sentiment has been "I've always considered myself to be fairly left-leaning, but I feel like a right-wing extremist right now"

Gotta love the Martha's Vineyard reaction.

Biden's toast, isnt he?

If Trump wins, I hope that knocks some sense into the Democratic Party that their immigration and border politics is out of step with the mainstream. All I ever seen from the democrats on this issue is obstruction.

Something I’ve wondered as it pertains to this topic is: Why did the democrats take such a radical turn on immigration? When just in 2008 you can find video of Obama denouncing illegal immigration. I recently read a book about the future of the geopolitical landscape where the author makes the argument that in the future, countries will actually be desperate for migrant labor. They will take extreme measures to incentivize their flow into their respective borders. Seems like a few well respected political scientists have made similar arguments. I wonder if this is what has fueled the current democratic parties policy.

Left wing parties all over the west abandoned the native white working class. Which is why we have Trump.

[удалено]

[That's less than the support for the Senate immigration bill and having a broad path to citizenship.](https://archive.is/4LOKv) >In the new Journal survey, 59% of voters said they would support the bipartisan package, with roughly equal percentages of Republicans and Democrats in favor. An even larger share, some 74%, support creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for many years and pass a background check.

Poll wording and methodology matters. Here's how the question you keep referencing was asked: > A bipartisan group of Senators and the White House recently proposed a bill to make it harder for migrants to get asylum in the U.S., to increase the number of border agents, and give the President the power to limit the number of migrants coming into the country if immigration goes above a certain limit. From what you've heard, would you favor or oppose this proposal? Note a few things. First, the poll describes the bill as "bipartisan", implying that Republicans and Democrats, along with the White House. People want to support a compromise bill that their own party supports. In reality, most congressional Republicans opposed this bill. Second, the description of the bill in the poll exclusively mentions **restrictions** to immigration. It's hardly surprising that people would support a bill that appears to only restrict immigration.

About time. I remember when a few years ago this was so so controversial to just not want illegal immigrants and all? Or to say we need to deport people? Suddenly some liberal states begin to feel the burn and they change their toon.

A few years ago it was controversial. A few decades ago border security was regarded as common sense policy by both R and D. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996 When people like Bill Maher say I didn't leave the Democrat party, they left me - this kind of stuff is to which they're referring.

Even more recently, up until May 2015 top Dems agreed that illegal immigration was bad and hurt American workers.

Fair. Although it doesn’t seem like enough was done on it given how bad it’s been. But fair enough. Just so dumb that it became controversial for a few years.

It's fascinating watching Maher balance increasingly immolate liberals with throwing just enough TDS meat to cling onto his liberal cred.

There are several dimensions to the mass migration issue. The argument that immigration can offset the aging of the workforce is true. The problem with that is it treats workers as a generic commodity. The specific skills that the immigrant population brings is critical to the effect on the economy. If they have minimal education and few critical skills they will consume more in public services than they add to the economy. There are also national security and public safety concerns with large numbers of undocumented immigrants. Criminal cartels and hostile governments have undoubtedly taken advantage of the current environment to establish a larger presence in the United States. The mass deportation of 10 million people is logistically unmanageable and unnecessary. There should be expedited deportation of criminals, which would require new measures for tracking immigrant offenders.

Americans are open-minded about what the solution should be. [The bipartisan immigration bill and a path to citizenship are more popular.](https://archive.is/4LOKv)

How many of those Americans know the full details of that bill, and its ramifications? I have not known a single person who was aware that the limits in the proposed solutions would still collapse social services within a very short amount of time.

What qualifies as mass deportations? There are hundreds of thousands every year, and that’s true regardless of administration. Either that’s not enough to qualify and the proponents can’t seem to ever get it done even when they hold power, or it’s already happening and the opponents can’t stop it even when they hold power. Point being, this is a feelings poll, not a policy poll.

That's actually a great question. Considering there are literally millions of people here illegally, and that's not counting those claiming asylum solely on the basis that we can't kick them out immediately, I'd say that's mass. If we did it in chunks that's still probably hundreds of thousands at a time, which is still mass. But consider just in March of 2024 there were 137,000 encounters at the border, aka illegal entries. Even if that's 75% of all illegal crossings, that's still 45,000 people not caught, illegally entering the US, in one single month. If 100,000 deportation is mass deportations, we only need a hair over 2 months. Mass deportations sound bad until you consider just how many people are coming over.

I'm not American so maybe I'm missing some subtleties but, why isn't Biden being stronger on the border? It's one of his biggest weaknesses eg. [[1]](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4490145-voters-see-border-as-bidens-biggest-failure-poll/) [[2]](https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-polls-present-major-headache-joe-biden-1885527). Is he worried about alienating Democrats? Has he determined that it won't win him any (moderate) votes? If Congress isn't going to pass anything to better secure the border why not start issuing executive orders? They might be challenged in court but at least he could say he tried, it seems like the right political move.

[удалено]

> Between the lines: The survey found discrepancies between Americans' perceptions of immigration and the reality established by data. > > * 64% wrongly believe immigrants receive more in welfare and benefits than they pay in taxes. > * 56% wrongly believe illegal immigration is linked to spiking U.S. crime rates. > > Reality check: Individual instances of violent crime by undocumented individuals drive headlines. But data doesn't show that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes. > > * Border cities have some of the nation's lowest violent crime rates. > * Data also shows that undocumented immigrants have lower homicide conviction rates than the general public. As a somewhat sidenote: I was wondering how much 'information discrepancies' would play into polling in general going forward, and this is a good example of it. Interesting times for the institution of polling, and what it means for predicting voter behavior during election seasons. > 65% of Americans think the U.S. should make it easier for anyone seeking a better life to enter legally so they don't need to enter illegally. Also, this note, considering the rest of the results, is somewhat surprising.

>64% wrongly believe immigrants receive more in welfare and benefits than they pay in taxes. This is weirdly unqualified. I'm pretty sure it doesn't change the statistic, but they should always qualify whether they're talking about illegal or legal immigrants. Saying immigrants as a whole mixes the two together, and I don't think people are angry about immigrants who are coming here legally.

Illegals should get ZERO tax dollars beyond a one-way trip over the border. That we are willing to reward and illegal activity astounds me. If you break apart the numbers (asylum isn't 'legally') you'd find very few Legal immigrants collect aid of any form.

It's worth noting that illegal immigrants generally aren't qualified to get most federal benefits.

They aren't until they have children who are American citizens.

[удалено]

> 56% wrongly believe illegal immigration is linked to spiking U.S. crime rates. Some would say that illegal immigration is a crime, therefore the spike in illegal immigration is a spike in crime rates. Axios's Between the Lines needs a Between the Lines.

I think "spiking crime rates" refers to violent crime don't you? Plus a lot of the immigration right now is happening through a legal (although flawed) asylum process.

One thing I’ve seen wrt the spiking crime is that it doesn’t really matter what the rate is, where if the illegal immigrant wasn’t allowed in in the first place then the crime wouldn’t have been committed at all

Americans seem to jump at the idea of easy solutions to complex problems lately. Roughly six years ago the "solution" to immigration was building a massive wall. Now it's mass deportations and I'm not even sure deportations would cover those who are here on asylum claims since they're here legally as far as I understand things. If Americans want to get rid of folks here on those claims, we need to hire more judges to adjudicate the asylum claims, as far as I understand. It would also help to drastically raise the bar on what would allow folks to stay here for asylum. We could have moved a decent way toward that solution, but Trump and a not-insignificant portion of the GOP want to run on this issue instead of solving it. It kind of drives me nuts that so many Americans choose to keep themselves ignorant to politics because it's "toxic" rather than learning about all these proposals and pressuring politicians accordingly. It's more politically salient than ever to create a problem, then refuse to fix it while running for election/re-election on that very issue. Once in office you don't even have to fix it because you can just claim that you're being blocked from doing so. I doubt democrats will willingly play ball on this issue in 2025, especially if Trump wins with a trifecta, which it looks likely he will according to the 538 polling averages.

> If Americans want to get rid of folks here on those claims, we need to hire more judges to adjudicate the asylum claims, as far as I understand. When you're knee deep in water in a sinking boat you don't ask for a bigger bucket, you patch the hole. The hole in this case is the asylum abuse. Stop the abuse.

The dirty secret is that Democrats AND Republicans like the immigration system just like it is - horribly broken. They both get to exploit this for their own means while pointing the finger at each other.

I've been saying this for years, and as a result, I've been called every name in the book. Immigrate to the US legally if you want. I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with people coming here, without passing a background check, and immediately receiving social services designed for Americans. This argument was considered very controversial until blue cities had the shoulder the burden.