Hacker News Reader

Comment by billy99k | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

How about this: no masks, no weapons (if they feel they are in danger they can call the cops who already have more weapons than they possibly need). Every time a citizen is detained in jail, detaining agent and their manager lose their paycheck for that period. Family with kids jailed and separated? No paycheck. You know, do it in the Christian compassionate way, not in the shooting single moms way.

We would have to pass a more general law that said children cannot be separated from their parents based on any crime the parents have committed, as there's no reason to special-case illegal immigration.

They sold us on a lie about the extent of the illegal immigrant "problem". It's numerically impossible to make the promises they made and not deport people who it's hard to argue should be deported.

Immigrants also commit crimes at fewer rates than US born people and crime is at all time lows. Yet they sold us for years on a crime moral panic and phantom "migrant crime".

So you said, propose a solution that also involves deporting people, and I will say NO. You are wanting to target a mostly fake problem.

It is fairly well established that social economic status is the largest predictor for crime than any other predictor. In order for immigrants to commit crimes at a lower rate than US born people we would have to make the claim that immigrants has an average higher social economical status than US born people.

The statistics you are looking for is that the sum of all crimes is lower for immigrants than US born people. 13.8% of the US population are immigrant residents, so in order for the sum of immigration crime to be higher than US born people the rate would need to be close to 1000% larger, which it is not.

Aside from the confusing conflation of sums and rates mentioned in other replies, your argument assumes that correlations are transitive and exhaustive—i.e., that because socioeconomic status correlates with crime, any group with lower crime must have higher socioeconomic status. Which of course is invalid because correlations do not compose across variables, and crime is multi-causal

You can look at studies like https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1331677X.2022.20... if you want to look at those multi-causal aspects. In general however, demographics with higher socioeconomic status has lower crime rate and the concept is well established (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7820585/).

A missing aspect with immigration when it comes to statistics is time spent in the country. The likelihood that a person has ever committed a crime in a specific country is generally lower the less time they spend in that country, especially as that number reach zero. The apple to apple comparison would be to look at the average person of average age, in any specific demographic, and ask if they have ever committed a crime, which is not the same as committed a crime in a specific country. That would be the crime rate. An other way would be to ask the question regarding a given year, what is the probability of an individual to commit a crime. The rate of the average person lifetime will not align with the rate of any given year.

The relation between crime and socioeconomic has been thoroughly debated and research when it comes to race, with the finding that race is not related to violent crime, but only once socioeconomic factors (and other related aspects) has been controlled for. If you disregard socioeconomic factors, then race has a distinct relation with violent crime. It is only because researchers control for related factors that we get the findings that we get.

People can disagree with studies should be valid and which doesn't, or look at different meta studies and say which ones is more valid than the others, but I would recommend that one engage with the discussion rather than throw around assumptions about assumptions.

No, the way any serious person would look at crime data is per capita. You take the number of crimes committed by an immigrant and divide by the number of immigrants. That gives you a rate. The rate is lower than for people born in the US.

This may be the first time you are exposed to this idea, because you have been lied to repeatedly that crime is high and it's immigrants doing it, but it's well studied.

The US cannot afford, demographically, to curtail immigration, illegal or otherwise. Simple fact is the US needs more people because we’re under the replacement rate.

But why are we under the replacement rate? Seems relevant

It all comes back to women being treated as full people. Having a child is dangerous, expensive, and a major time commitment which mean that women who have other options are going to have fewer children later in life when they have the resources to support them. We also have much less demand for unskilled workers so even women who really want children are getting educated and establishing careers first rather than getting married at 18.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/is-the-us-birth-rate-decli...

That leaves really only two choices: pull a Ceaușescu and try to remove the choice, or improve all of the things which make people feel now is not the right time to have kids. Since the former choice is both immoral and self-defeating, that really flips the discussion to why the people who claim to want more children oppose universal healthcare, childcare, making housing more affordable, banning negative career impacts for mothers, addressing climate change, etc. There are many things which factor into an expensive multi-decade bet and you have to improve all of them to substantially shift the outcome.

They can't be good little wives like republicans want if they have a career.

> It all comes back to women being treated as full people.

What does this actually mean? Do you mean "get a job instead of having kids?" Working to afford life instead of having kids seem much less humanising, if anything. Being a wife and mum is being a full person, and the main thing that's bad about it is if you are a full-time mum your spouse has to work incredibly hard to compete on the housing ladder against all the two-income families bidding against them.

I meant that they get to choose whether and when they have children, and can have full careers. Think about it in terms of opportunity cost: much over a century ago, women were expected to marry and be wives with a handful of exceptions like religious service. They did not have many opportunities for education and there were limited opportunities for independent employment with entire professions off-limits. When those were your choices, even women who didn’t really want kids that much went down that path because only a few people had the drive and social clout not to, and without modern birth control that almost inevitably lead to more kids (necessary, because mortality was shockingly high in pre-vaccine times).

Now, however, there are tons of other opportunities available. Instead of kids just happening, couples can plan them and are making decisions about their finances and other life impacts such as the case you mentioned where people might realize that they can’t afford a larger home. Prospective mothers, even if they really want kids, are also being told advanced education is key or that mothers tend to have lower lifetime earnings even adjusted for field, so the questions aren’t just “can we feed them?” but “would I avoid future layoffs if I finish a masters degree before becoming a parent?”

I think that’s great, everyone should control their life trajectory, but it means that to the extent we want to reverse the trend we need to be lowering the costs so people aren’t looking at trade offs like permanently lowering their career trajectory or locking themselves into a limited, highly-competitive corner of the housing market.

> much over a century ago, women were expected to marry and be wives with a handful of exceptions like religious service. They did not have many opportunities for education and there were limited opportunities for independent employment with entire professions off-limits

This was the case for most men as well, except they sometimes had to go and die weeping and in pain in a foreign field rather than stay at home and do what for most people is the most rewarding thing in life.

... and we should improve those conditions for both men and women so that they can live fulfilling lives. Your whole argument is predicated on the "redpilled" idea that gender rights are zero-sum, and that's just not the case.

It's not at all. My point was that it wasn't women specifically not being allowed to be "whole people" - that is a false premise, as it implies that men were.

Consider that many women… want to work? And some even want to work and have kids?

Because of eroding worker rights and raise cost of living.

You need free time for kids and if the salaries are too low for a single income household a lot of people will end up opting out of having kids.

This isn't unique the the US. Basically every country with a whack work life balance is looking at population replacement problems.

I think this is an oversimplification. History has shown that as soon as a country is developed enough that children start increasing the family expenses rather than decrease them (I.e. helping out with the farm, or whatever the sustaining family business is, but in developing countries this is overwhelmingly agriculture) the pressure to have children slacks off to a large degree and becomes more of a luxury. So it’s just a byproduct of industrialization.

The US is actually better off with replacement rate than a lot of countries that have industrialized since them because of the way it happened and the wars that were fought. More rapidly-industrializing countries (China, Japan, a few other Asian and SA countries) have way shorter runways despite industrializing much later than the US. And those with one child policies really just made things worse for themselves.

A very large part of what the future is going to look like in my opinion is how different countries are able to grapple with this issue and come up with solutions to the problem of a large aging population and a service, hospitality and medical industry with not enough bodies.

That's what happens when you make your population poor by outsourcing large chunks of your economic base and stomping on worker rights.

Considering at least a third of potential replacement partners are Trump voters, can you imagine women feeling sexy about them? LOL

I'd be surprised if the elections of '16 and '24 even register as a blip in demographic data.

Considering the many liberal women who want men who have conservative values (although still agree with them on politics, somehow), yes. Probably yes.

What does this even mean?

Cat-brained response

If you have any better sources of minimum wage labor, now's your chance to say it.

For the line must always go up crowd, they feel a need. Not everyone is in the line must always go up crowd.

The line is always going to be going up somewhere. I’d rather it be where I live than not.

Then doesn't it make more sense for the people who prefer living among a high fertility rate to move to the places where there's a high fertility rate? Why should people who don't have that preference have to endure mass migration when they don't want, didn't ask, and didn't vote for it?

Makes no sense at all imo, especially when you consider the origin story and melting pot ethos that made the US what it was in the first place.

The folks in charge have made it pretty clear they want Caucasian people, especially northern European or white South African. They believe what made the US great in the past wasn't a diverse population sharing power. Rather people like them at the top, owning and ordering around everyone else.

That logic doesn't hold up.

Legal immigration - as is today - is about 1% of the US population. That's pretty standard, and would result in an slowly increasing population.

But regardless, saying "we need immigrants" then jumping to "illegal or not" is not a logical argument. We absolutely can have a system that prevent illegal immigration, while carefully screening legal immigrants. Heck, every country in the world does this except the US.

Can, if we had a functioning Congress that actually passed material laws. We’ve been trying to pass immigration reform for the last couple of decades.

Changing laws is irrelevant if the executive chooses to ignore them.

It would be better to actually enforce the immigration laws we have right now, and see where we land. Then make changes from there.

And we would have had bipartisan steps toward it before the last presidential election, if Trump hadn't told Republicans to tank it at the last minute because it hurt his biggest talking point for reelection.

Republicans did not support that bill. A single Republican Senator negotiated it in secret. You guys mischaracterize this bill as some amazing thing that everyone was excited to pass until Trump told them not to. That isn't reality.

You can hear it from the horse's mouth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf4EzoWR944

The US values individual freedom, has porous borders, a diverse population, and a large land mass. Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration.

Even Reagan granted mass amnesty in the face of such costs.

We can disagree on where the threshold of unacceptable intrusion into our lives should be. But significant change probably requires replacing the Fourth Amendment. Or--as is happening now--pretending the 4A doesn't exist and hope whoever is in power next won't prosecute them.

> Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration.

I don’t agree. It’s a matter of incentives. If you know entering the US illegally means you stand a high chance of being deported, have almost no ability to be employed and no access to any social services, the problem mostly solves itself.

Lots of other countries ask why the US has problems other countries have already solved and immigration is a great example of it. It’s a solved problem, our leaders intentionally don’t want it fixed.

> Even Reagan granted mass amnesty in the face of such costs.

The amnesty was an agreement that substantial legislation would be passed later than would stop illegal immigration. That’s why Reagan agreed to it. But the changes never happened.

> But significant change probably requires replacing the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment can stay as is. Just stop people from staying illegally in the country and the 4th amendment becomes a non-issue.

So you're comfortable with the current situation for citizens?

I.e. one must carry paperwork at all times, risk getting detained and beaten for going out in public (especially if not white or speaking non-English), masked men may enter your property or home with no identification and take whomever they like, no accountability for ICE abuses/mistakes, etc.

What about migrants who are legal? Or tourists who just want to visit on a visa?

Does the US really want a country with no migration nor tourism?

You also seem to think this problem is solved elsewhere, but Europe continues to struggle with surges of migration from conflict zones and poorer countries.

None of those things you stated are accurate.

Citizens do not need to carry papers.

Federal law enforcement (what you call “masked men”) cannot enter your property without a search warrant, nor take whoever they want without a I-200 or I-205 warrant for violating immigration law.

All migrants who are legal MUST carry proof of legal status as it’s the law - 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e). That includes tourists.

It’s not really that hard. Australia has strict enforcement of immigration laws. As does Japan. It’s never perfect but the practically zero enforcement for the past few decades in the US is a horrible situation that only encourages things like human trafficking and labor abuses.

Is that really what we want the US known for? A country where if you can smuggle yourself into at the risk of physical and sexual violence by cartels you might be able to get ahead assuming you can survive the abuse and exploitation of your labor? Immigration laws protect immigrants as much as they protect citizens.

Most of these people didn't protest ICE under Biden and Obama, who both deported more than Trump 1. That's because we see a difference in how illegal migrants were prioritized (violent offenders first) and treated (more humanely) then compared to now. And how citizen protests were handled then and now.

Yeah, deportations are clearly beside the point, now.

Yeah I'm against ICE and I don't want any immigrants deported.

Why? Deportation is a reasonable response when a person violates a country’s immigration laws. That is the standard around the world.

Alternatively, you have an essentially open border, which obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.

Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration). It sends mixed signals to potential immigrants, and leads to the outcomes we have today when we decide to resume enforcing our laws.

>Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration).

"US deportations under Biden surpass Trump's record"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36e41dx425o

> obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.

I don't agree that this is "obvious". Immigrants bring important social and cultural capital. Who do you think is building a lot of the infrastructure in the US? The people putting a strain on the system are actually the aging baby boomer generation.

I have many other reasons for supporting open immigration that are less transactional, but the suggestions that immigrants "strain" our infrastructure is incorrect.

Immigrants do bring important social and cultural capital. But nobody here is arguing in favor of no immigration.

The standard among countries all over the world is to regulate the flow of immigration via immigration law and deportation of people who violate that law.

How could a massive influx of people happening faster than a system can react not strain the system? I saw this firsthand in schools and hospitals where I grew up, and there are numerous examples throughout history from around the world of the disruption it can cause.

The US is not like many countries in that it was formed by illegal immigrants, and not just immigration, literal genocide and land theft of the indigenous people.

That being said, all immigration policy is out of date. The world is connected now and the policies are an anachronism.

> How could a massive influx of people happening faster than a system can react

I don't agree that this is reality. Our system is not under strain from immigration. It's under strain because we spend our money on the military instead of improving infrastructure. It's also under strain due to wealth inequality and corporate friendly policy. None of which has anything to do with immigration.

> The US is not like many countries in that it was formed by illegal immigrants…

That’s a good argument for vigilantly enforcing immigration laws. Look what happens when you don’t.

I’m hoping the world grants everyone citizenship to the state of Israel. Most of us are children of Abraham statistically anyway. And, think of all the benefits and economic development.

/s?

Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".

Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category. He's "waiting to hear of alternatives that don't involve deporting illegal immigrants", and I have one: don't deport anyone.

>Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category

Which would put you in the minority (16%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/am...

Even without getting into a debate of whether we should do immigration enforcement at all (a sibling reply goes into it in better detail), there's the practical effect that most people do, and if Democrats don't oblige, people like Trump will get in power instead.

I think the Democrats are also culpable for supporting anti-immigrant policy and sentiment. I absolutely believe that I'm in the minority, as this country has a deep history in racial bias (in fact, it was founded on that).

What actual, concrete benefit do you see from deporting immigrants?

The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws.

I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems.

Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.

What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for?

Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve?

Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?

>Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?

To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint?

And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.

Is the goal making sure everyone goes through the serial killer checkpoint, or is the goal stopping serial killers?

So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?

No, that is not the implication. Very obvious (thus failed) deflection going on here.

So what are you trying to imply then? As we seen with airport checkpoints and speeding cameras, it's clearly okay to punish behaviors that aren't directly harmful, so why is it so baffling for you that Americans want enforcement actions against people who entered the country illegally?

> Is the goal making sure everyone goes through the serial killer checkpoint, or is the goal stopping serial killers?

For the sake of argument we can assume the only point of the US immigration regime is to stop baddies from coming in, so yes the goal is "stopping serial killers". However, for the reasons I outlined, that doesn't mean we should disband serial killer checkpoints, or refuse to punish people for skipping serial killer checkpoints.

How does removing people who are not serial killers, serve the goal of removing serial killers?

> I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law.

How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids?

If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.

They currently use administrative warrants but I’m in favor of requiring judicial warrants.

Administrative warrants aren’t legal court issued warrants, we’re have three branches of government for a reason. As far as the law of the land goes these ICE officers are violating most of the Bill of Rights.

Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?

I agree, but I’m clarifying the facts: they’re claiming an administrative warrant gives them authority to enter a house, not no warrant as OP stated.

Great, since we are all in agreement, let's see if we can put it clear terms.

Administrative warrants are civil in nature and do not give authority to enter a house or any private space. Using them as such is in violation of the fourth amendment.

An administrative warrant is just an email from their boss telling them to do it. It's not a real thing

Has this ever been tested in court?

What would that even mean? You present the judge an email from your boss and ask "Your Honour, is this an email from my boss?"

This is a serious topic but holy crap can you imagine that. I feel like I’m in bizarro world that anyone takes that argument seriously.

>you see from deporting immigrants?

Nice job sneakily changing "immigration enforcement" to "deporting immigrants".

It's a false dilemma either way. "You are with ICE or you are pro-illegal immigration".

...and that's best case scenario, giving the benefit of the doubt.

The alternative is better trained officers with more accountability.

You can’t fix this by giving them more money for training. This is how they’re trained to act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)

Bovino says "the officer [who killed Pretti] has extensive training as a range safety officer and less lethal officer,” and had served for eight years.

Deporting people is cringe

You're wrong, simple as that.

You’re right. We should throw away the constitution so we can deport.. (checks notes) 600,000 undocumented immigrants, only 5% of which have committed a violent crime.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I do have a question. If you don't deport illegal immigrants, why not just open the border to everyone to come in? (let's ignore criminal records, etc for this exercise). What's the point of not letting people in but then if they manage to come in illegally, assume it's all good and they can stay?

That's the question, isn't it? Why not just do that? Who are you trying to keep out of the country, and for what end, and is that end best attained by removing people from the country who aren't the ones you are trying to keep out?

For instance, if you believe the border should be strict to keep out serial killers, what does that have to do with removing Korean car factory workers who aren't serial killers?

Because once they come in sufficient numbers they will turn your country into the country they fled from - and then you are in trouble.

So for the United States, it would primarily be family-oriented Spanish speaking Catholics whose kids will be bilingual and grandkids will speak only English? There have been waves of immigrants before where the Irish or Italians or Germans were seen as "invaders" undermining the character of the country. And then their descendants fully integrated and became part of the culture.

Also the US and Western European countries are in much better economic and civic conditions that the immigrants can take advantage of to live better lives and contribute.

Which river is it in Ireland that they dye green every year for St Patrick’s day like they do in Chicago?

This is a slippery slope argument at best and jingoist rhetoric at worst.

It's really not. It takes many generations to assimilate. You cannot just invite a huge influx of people and not expect a major cultural shift.

Different people are different. Any change in demographics — such as an increase in wealth inequality or number of smartphones — causes a major cultural shift. What is the evidence that this particular cultural shift is very bad?

"major culture shift" != "they will turn your country into the country they fled from".

Regardless, the culture is that of a nation of immigrants. I don't see how anything here can cause major cultural shift away from that. I am willing to bet you won't be willing to elaborate either, so next goal post move please...

I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

Well, if a Korean car factory worker live and work illegally in the country, then it makes total sense to remove them, regardless if they are serial killers or not. A company shouldn't even hire anyone who is not eligible to work legally in the country. There are laws that need to be followed like everything else.

It sounds like you're saying that you want the country to have open borders so that everyone can come live and work here given they pass some basic checks (no criminal history for example). I am not saying that is wrong, but that's not how pretty much every country in the world operates.

> then it makes total sense to remove them, regardless if they are serial killers or not.

Why?

> A company shouldn't even hire anyone who is not eligible to work legally in the country.

Apart from the legal punishments themselves, why not? What goal is achieved by this?

No horse either but here is an attempt (ignoring criminal record as you say): Opening the border and letting her rip is clearly not sustainable in the medium term. So you try to make it (reasonably) hard to get in incl. turning people away at the border.

Once they are in (incl illegally so) you concede you have lost on this instance. Now you admit that forcefully removing immigrants carries too high a cost (literally + damage in the communities you remove the immigrants from + your humanitarian image). So you don't.

Somehow that balance seems really hard to get right and edge cases (criminal record) matter.

I'm not a big fan of this solution since it rewards people who knowingly did something that is illegal. It also allows businesses to take advantage of these people, unless you decide to give them legal status immediately. However, I agree with you that getting the balance right is really hard and that deporting people, esp families with kids who grew up here and did nothing wrong, is very problematic.

Because we like second-class citizens because its easier to exploit their labor.

Buying into the narrative that any of this is about illegal immigrants is a red herring. Immigration is merely a pretext for enabling an unaccountable fascist police state using big data from the consumer surveillance industry to both keep enough people believing the regime's abject reality-insulting lies (the carrot), while extralegally punishing anybody who might be too effective at speaking out (the stick). This is painfully obvious as they move on to target US citizens - both the boots on the ground terror gangs, as well as the increasing political rhetoric about deporting citizens.

That's no longer immigration; that's an invasion. You can't just let unfettered immigration into a country because that would drain resources and have a negative cultural impact. Yes, people in a country pay taxes and as such should enjoy protections against invaders.

As if those were the only two possibilities.

I mean, I don't like CCP tech or public executions of disarmed citizens but saying only 5% is a bit nuts.

Another way to look at it: the native born are twice as likely to be arrested for violent and drug crimes.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG...

The stats are pretty clear. Based on DHS own numbers

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/number-deported-im...

I'll read it for them.

This basically states that the figures are based on self reported ICE data and are unreliable at best.

The figure is within a rounding error, and regardless does nothing to change the CCP tech and public executions of citizens in the street in broad daylight in front of dozens of cameras.

What percentage of illegal immigrants have committed violent crimes?

For me, it's the summary execution of US citizens that gives me pause.

Who needs to care about the Constitution, Individual Liberty, or limited government when there are iMmIgrAnTs around?!

It's like these people never got past their childhood phase worrying about the monster in the closet. In fact I do have to wonder how much of the non-Boomer+ support for this regime is just from naive kids who have zero life experience.

Tons of young people either voted for Trump or didn't vote at all this time around.

Undoubtedly influenced by social media, they're now realizing that what they voted for was their own future's destruction and are now abandoning him in droves.

We'll see if it's too late or not.

Delete your social media, shit is poison.

At the suburban protest I was at a few weeks ago there was a kid, he couldn't have been more than 20, circling around in his ~25 year old car with broken exhaust and mismatched-color body panels, filming, pointing, and laughing. I felt bad. At least the 50-something guys screaming with the blood vessels bulging out of their foreheads merely had the world change around them - supporting Republicans was halfway reasonable 30 or even 15 years ago, and if they haven't realized by now they're never going to. Whereas this kid is going to have plenty of time to cringe at how terribly stupid and naive he was.

Thanks for coming out!!

At the walkout on Monday, it was a smallish group of us out, and then like a class of high schoolers came out and joined us and it was such a nice burst of energy.

"New York City get litty! Donald Trump is shitty!" lol, they were having some fun with the chants.

Would love to see more young people come out

Exactly.

Forced movement is cringe, actually

You're right, maybe calling people "illegal" is just shitty and we should be the welcoming county we were taught about on history class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com