My own views lean pretty strongly towards one end of the spectrum, and I simply can't understand why people would hold the opposite views. So I suspect I'm missing something.
People on the right tend to see everyone as capable of following all the rules. To break them is a clear choice which has consequences. People who break the law or rules suffer from a character flaw. If a lot of people are breaking the law or a rule then there is some moral breakdown in society or a failure to enforce the law.
People on the left tend to see breaking the law or rules as a natural consequence of ones needs. If a lot of people are breaking a law then there is something wrong v with that law or the systems around it.
People on the right basically have faith in laws, law enforcement and are skeptical of the motives of law/rule breakers.
People on the left basically have faith in people and their reasons for breaking laws/rules and the circumstances around their act. They are skeptical of law enforcement.
Edit: I realize I failed to connect this to illegal immigration. So someone on the left will say, "this person crossed illegally or overstayed their visa for some good reason. So many people are doing so because the system or laws are cutting too strongly against human needs/nature.
Whereas someone on the right will say. This person broke the immigration laws out due to a lack of character, ie. they didn't have the patience to wait or they have some I'll intent. Regardless, they've shown a lack of character, there should be consequences and we don't want flawed people here anyway.
So in this regard is comes down to what you think law/rule breaking says about someone's integrity or nature.
I'd love to hear from people across the political spectrum as to whether or not your model seems accurate w.r.t. their own personal views on the subject.
I.e., not whether or not they think your model accurately describes the people with whom they disagree on this topic. Just whether or not they feel it accurately captures their own view.
Conservatives tend to believe more in personal freedoms as, according to their knowledge of human-nature, they cannot feasibly trust other people - most especially the federal government.
In the same vein liberals tend to work more towards social programs and "the greater good" because their knowledge of human nature says that humans are fundamentally good and should deserve another chance.
I believe the view of human nature to be the most fundamental reduction of modern politics - OP's interpretation of laws coincides with this.
Of course that flips when you jump to the issue of pursing white collar crimes and regulatory violations.
BTW, in this context I'm using 'right' to mean the group of people that largely votes Republican and 'left' to mean the group of people that largely votes Democrat.
Perhaps we could go 100% libertarian first (no borders, no taxes) and after a while go 100% social (not sure how globe-wide social welfare can work tho)
Problems of immigration and citizenship go all the way back to republican Rome. The answers are crappy and few epspecially with several global humanitarian crises underway.
Could you explain a little about how you made that inference? Nothing in my daily experience leads me to reach the same conclusion.
The wanting more immigrants from "nations like Norway" was a huge tell too.
Like, these won't be "solid debate and discussion" but you'll definitely work out why people hold opposite views quickly.
Crowder is a mixed bag for me. I'd say he's a bit of parallel to John Oliver at times. You can't take everything that they say completely seriously. I'm a big fan of his "Change My Mind" series, where he goes out to have discussions with people and he puts em up unedited. Although the quality can fluctuate a lot based on how familiarized each person is with the issue being discussed.
I'd also add Joe Rogan's podcast to the list. He's very good at talking things through with people, trying to understand why they think a certain way. It's like a journey of exploration. It never gives me a vibe of someone trying to shove down a specific political agenda down my throat. It's also very long and unedited, so they have time to really dive into complex issues and you know that the other person's views aren't being misrepresented.
Congress and CSpan are good starting points.
Yeah, everyone hates Congress. But its literally their job to raise up points in national debate. They kind of talk past each other, but listening in on the debate tends to be a good "introduction" to any particular topic of politics.
The House has less time per member, leading to rapid-fire but low-information kinds of debates. Senators keep talking on-and-on-and-on... so you can spend 10+ minutes with just one speaker giving their point of view. A back-and-forth on a particular topic can last literally hours in the Senate.
So listen in on House debate issues if you want a quicker summary of points. Listen in on Senators if you want deeper discussions and a bit more back-and-forth between members.
Bonus points: the Senate and the House are where the laws are written. So learning about the political viewpoints of those in power tends to be more useful than the opinions of random pundits on news channels. Its not like anyone on Fox News or "Colbert" will actually change a law, ya know?