I don't follow. Illegal immigration into the US is down right now. So, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
As soon as enforcement lets up an iota the lesson will be it is wiser to stay off paper and off the visa pathway and go underground. People who aren't arrested and don't present to CBP for entry and don't get a visa, as far as the government knows, don't exist.
The people going to their immigration hearings to "stay legal" were apprehended as illegal immigrants, invited to come up with an excuse as to why they should be allowed to stay in the country, and released. You'll literally see "apprehension date" on their paperwork. The "legal way" is to apply for that stuff, then enter the country.
It's annoying that people elide this. There is an ongoing attempt by the current administration to remove these very recently introduced practices that no one voted for. Or a show of an attempt, really, because they love illegal labor.
But it's weird that for the past decade that illegal immigrants who have been caught are released almost immediately into a dilatory multi-year process of hearings. It's also weird that even those that have not been apprehended are issued IDs, work permits, business and drivers licenses, get in-state tuition as state schools, and in some places get to vote for local elections. There was never a debate about this, and it would have never survived a debate.
It's important to note that none of the countries that they are coming from allow people to do this. You can't just walk into Mexico and be Mexican, or fly to Nigeria and be Nigerian. Any shock that they have is in how easy it is to just walk and fly into the US and stay indefinitely.
> it is wiser to stay off paper and off the visa pathway and go underground.
This is how it used to be. But "underground" is nothing like this; it isn't in-state tuition and business licenses and street protests. It's usually harder than just going back home. In the late 90s, net migration from Mexico was negative. The "wall" (that Hillary Clinton helped push, and had a hand in started modern left-bashing among Democratic administrations) was a bad idea because a lot of people just jumped the border for enough time to make a few dollars, then ran back. People would go back and forth half a dozen times. After the wall, getting across was so onerous that you had to stay.
Previously, if you were a Mexican who hit a bad financial patch, you ran to the US, worked like a dog, and ran back with enough cushion to get your life going again - if you failed again, you could just repeat the process. After the wall when you hit that same patch, you had to commit to trying to make a life in the US.
I think the inflection point was the desire to get cheap labor to repair New Orleans after the flood, but they didn't want to hire the black people who lived there, they wanted to get rid of them, to ship them out to FEMA trailers in neighboring states. That's exactly what they did.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylu...
Which is next to impossible, particularly for immigrants who pick crops and process livestock. It’s annoying when people elide this.
> It's also weird that even those that have not been apprehended are issued IDs, work permits, business and drivers licenses, get in-state tuition as state schools, and in some places get to vote for local elections.
Or since those people pay taxes and are subject to governance, maybe it isn’t weird at all.
ICE doing a good job of removing illegal aliens ("acting like SS" in GP's parlance) will trigger the next democratic president to relax border enforcement. This is what happened with Biden. He let in 7.2 million migrants [1].
There's no way for Trump to deport 7.2 million people in 4 years. Pro-illegal immigration presidents are always at an advantage.
Trump's strict (and good) policies might trigger the next democratic president to just blanket pardon all illegal aliens, and the next republican president can't do anything about it.
[1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/million-migrants-border-bi...
How so? What mechanism do you see that goes from "ICE acting like the SS" to "a lot more illegal migration in the long term"? What's the cause and effect here?
Not saying you're wrong, necessarily, just... I don't see the causality at all.
[1] https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylu...
Imagine a democrat administration simply reverting ICE to its pre-2025 state. the implication alone and the perception it gives will drive up illegal immigration. "america is open again".
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-findi...
> [Department] was not notified of or involved in this enforcement action. By state law, city resolution, and department policy, [we do] not cooperate or coordinate with federal immigration enforcement.
There was a really interesting open ended survey some years ago, in the leadup to the trump/clinton election but I can't find it now sorry.
When republicans voters were asked to describe their preferred immigration policies, they outline a stance significantly more permissive and flexible, and less burdensome, than the one we currently have. More liberal than the reality, in other words.
People don't know what the immigration policies are and so they can't know what they should be either. The anti-immigration sentiment is a stunning propaganda victory decades in the making, no more.
Why? Wouldn't it disincentivize illegal immigration by making it much more riskier?
Agreed that the legal immigration system needs an overhaul, these are a lot of people living in limbo, paying taxes and not causing crimes with very few rights. The term no taxation without representation was the reason the USA got founded.
Once democratic cities got a taste of the flood of people coming in that were sent by southern states, they realized how big the issue is and how much of a drag on resources it is.
Republicans did jim crow in the 50s and 60s, we still talk about it today, and the positive blowback from that needs no explanation. Keep in mind that ICE is doing a lot more than cops did to protesters in the 60s, and it is targeting not just one group but several minority groups. not only that, it is all being live streamed, and it is affecting a lot of majority-group americans more directly. If ICE can avoid being disbanded it would be a great victory for them.
If I were exaggerating, I would be talking about tribunals and mass incarcerations of ICE agents, but I'm not.
I am arguing in bad faith for pointing out historical facts? What bizarro world are we in? Do we not care about facts any more?
> You're trying to make an falsely link the democratic party today with the party in the 60's
That you think I am trying to make the Democratic party look bad by saying this is your assumption.
Guess what, Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act which abolished Jim Crow and was a Democrat in the 60s.
This doesn't mean anything with regards to modern politics.
> I call this: intellectual fraud.
I call it US History.
By the way, I hope no one ever treats you even even a little bit like you are treating me.
> That's not how it is in reality, southern states (not just them though) have been doing that with homeless people too, not just immigrants.
> The south and what would be modern republicans did jim crow in the 50s and 60s, we still talk about it today, ...
Not that difficult, and you could have bypassed the whole lashing at out me for pointing out your error fiasco.
Ideologically, they were republicans. In name only, they were Democrats.
This is not some 'haha gotcha!' type thing. Real argument with real human brains don't work that way. You can be technically right but if it's on some semantic bullshit nobody cares about, then you're wrong.