President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

Well I am probably going to get flame/roasted for this...but this is my own personal belief.

1. I am not for asylum seeking that is more than one border over. We should provide asylum for people from Canada and Mexico. If you cross a border to get into Canada or Mexico, then no Asylum. At that point you are cherry picking.

In your calculation does that exclude anyone crossing an ocean to get here?

[BlueK]

Well I am probably going to get flame/roasted for this...but this is my own personal belief.

1. I am not for asylum seeking that is more than one border over. We should provide asylum for people from Canada and Mexico. If you cross a border to get into Canada or Mexico, then no Asylum. At that point you are cherry picking.

2. I am all for immigration. And I am okay for folks coming here. But no social support. No housing help, food help, medical help. Now...I am not a heartless person. I think of it logically. I would be all for providing minimal support for folks to get on their feet. But the problem is, as a society, once we provide help we never stop providing help. Because that is mean and wrong. If we turned off social service support, people would stop immigrating here.

I think that's very reasonable. The problem as I see it is, immigration opinions are a huge spectrum. Your reasonable ideas are someone else's "open borders," which I find is often used on message boards (and in Congress) by the most extreme and loudest anti-immigration folks as an epithet to try to silence any reasonable discussion about it. Right now that is the faction (Stephen Miller) that is in charge of policy, which the best I can tell is a goal of zero immigration and even un-legalizing however many they can who have legal status.

[frank ryan]

There isn't a massive never ending safety net for illegal migrants. They are entitled to less help than we are as citizens/

The energy around stopping immigration, from this admin, isn't about our national interests. It's the whole great replacement bullshit. That's what Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon are all about.

[frank ryan]

I think that's very reasonable. The problem as I see it is, immigration opinions are a huge spectrum. Your reasonable ideas are someone else's "open borders," which I find is often used on message boards (and in Congress) by the most extreme and loudest anti-immigration folks as an epithet to try to silence any reasonable discussion about it. Right now that is the faction (Stephen Miller) that is in charge of policy, which the best I can tell is a goal of zero immigration and even un-legalizing however many they can who have legal status.

Keep America white!

[chrisrenrut]

Yeah, the root question is, why do you want people to stop immigrating here? I know the surface answer is taxes, but anyone who is middle to upper middle class is not living a starkly different life paying 24% in taxes than they would be living if they were paying 22% taxes or even 14%. So this answer generally falls flat, and is not really the answer.

In addition, immigrants contribute more in taxes than they use in resources.


Legal immigrants generally contribute more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, creating a net fiscal surplus for public budgets. [1, 2]
✅ Overall Fiscal Impact

• Net Surplus: Research from the Cato Institute indicates that immigrants generate significantly more in tax revenues than they consume in public services. [1, 2]

• Higher Employment: Immigrants participate in the workforce at higher rates than native-born Americans, driving up total earned income and tax withholdings. [1]

• Lower Benefit Use: Legal immigrants—particularly working-age arrivals—utilize major entitlement and welfare programs at lower per-capita rates. [1, 2]

[All-American]

Yeah, the root question is, why do you want people to stop immigrating here? I know the surface answer is taxes, but anyone who is middle to upper middle class is not living a starkly different life paying 24% in taxes than they would be living if they were paying 22% taxes or even 14%. So this answer generally falls flat, and is not really the answer.

becuz they drk r jerrrrrbs

[LVAllen]

Well I am probably going to get flame/roasted for this...but this is my own personal belief.

1. I am not for asylum seeking that is more than one border over. We should provide asylum for people from Canada and Mexico. If you cross a border to get into Canada or Mexico, then no Asylum. At that point you are cherry picking.

2. I am all for immigration. And I am okay for folks coming here. But no social support. No housing help, food help, medical help. Now...I am not a heartless person. I think of it logically. I would be all for providing minimal support for folks to get on their feet. But the problem is, as a society, once we provide help we never stop providing help. Because that is mean and wrong. If we turned off social service support, people would stop immigrating here.

Let's start with a couple of premises about dangerous situations. If you disagree with any of them, let me know.

1. Cartels don't care about international borders, and can operate in multiple countries. See, for example, the talking points about cartels operating in the US.
2. A significant source of persecution in Central and South America comes from cartels. Human trafficking, forced involvement, etc.
3. A significant concern in Central and South America is the degree of collaboration or capture between cartels and the local or state government.
4. Cartels are able to make agreements between themselves.

Thus, if someone has a credible fear of persecution from their government because their government has been captured by multi-national criminals who either operate in every country between here and home, or have agreements with criminals in other governments (including Mexico), where, exactly, do you want them to stop? Mexico is not a Safe Third Country. One might argue that the government of the US has also been captured by multi-national criminals, but at least here there is some hope for freedom. And again - asylum and refugee status is a form of legal immigration. It is dependent on the immigrant being able to prove the persecution. That can be very difficult, and many get returned anyway.

As far as support for immigrants, there isn't much. There is some for asylees and refugees, offered through the Office of Refugee Resettlement, starting from the date asylum is granted. Most often, they ask for asylum and they are given a court hearing years into the future. In between, they are not permitted to work. They don't get benefits. After a certain amount of time, they can be authorized to work. So these aren't people who are streaming into the US because they hear about our wonderful high deductible health care plans and delightful history of prior authorizations. These are people who are fleeing persecution and who are willing to work. But that's all people who have requested asylum. People under the radar? Zero benefits. There are some states that offer them, but unless you live there, that doesn't affect you. The federal taxpayer does not pay for non-detention housing of undocumented immigrants. And the detention housing we are paying for is inhumane.

The conditions of confinement to which ICE subjected immigration detainees at 26 Fed during the summer of 2025 were inhumane and unconstitutional. By detaining far more persons in the hold rooms than ever was intended and for far longer than ever was intended, ICE objectively deprived detainees of sleep, sanitary living conditions, basic personal hygiene needs, sufficient food and water, and adequate medical care. ICE prevented detainees from accessing counsel, who might have stood in the way of what it was doing. Some of these deprivations impacted detainees immediately; others only after longer periods. ICE knew, or should have known, that how it was treating detainees was wrong, yet it continued to do it anyway. It did so to inflict punishment on detainees and induce them to self-deport.

https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/...t%20186%29.pdf

[falafel]

And Trump is so far ignoring the court order to restore their credentials.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...now-rcna599391

My understanding is that the order had a 12:30 p.m. eastern deadline, and the Trump admin waited until the very end to comply. Which is just incredibly petty. Also, CNN is reporting that the DOJ submitted a signed declaration near 12:00 p.m. declaring (under oath) that access had been restored to all media outlets by 9:30 a.m., which it had NOT.

Also, the Chinese State Media had access and video in the Oval Office at a time when American Press did not (due to the pool coverage boycott)!! How CRAZY is that??

How are we not all recognizing that Trump is descending into madness and should be removed?

[falafel]

In your calculation does that exclude anyone crossing an ocean to get here?

Just ONE ocean. Not two.

[falafel]

Well I am probably going to get flame/roasted for this...but this is my own personal belief.

1. I am not for asylum seeking that is more than one border over. We should provide asylum for people from Canada and Mexico. If you cross a border to get into Canada or Mexico, then no Asylum. At that point you are cherry picking.

2. I am all for immigration. And I am okay for folks coming here. But no social support. No housing help, food help, medical help. Now...I am not a heartless person. I think of it logically. I would be all for providing minimal support for folks to get on their feet. But the problem is, as a society, once we provide help we never stop providing help. Because that is mean and wrong. If we turned off social service support, people would stop immigrating here.

Triple post (RIP DDD)!

I will not attack your personal beliefs, everyone is entitled to those.

What I will say is that your opinion violates current US law. You don't have to agree with the law (I don't think you do), but its the law. Not to over-simply things, but imagine saying your don't agree with the speed limit? Still getting the ticket. Agreeing or disagreeing with a law is not really a stance, unless your argument is to your elected official that might affect some change.

That's the problem here - NO ONE is interested in resolving the issue, just fighting over the issue.

[The_Tick]

Triple post (RIP DDD)!

I will not attack your personal beliefs, everyone is entitled to those.

What I will say is that your opinion violates current US law. You don't have to agree with the law (I don't think you do), but its the law. Not to over-simply things, but imagine saying your don't agree with the speed limit? Still getting the ticket. Agreeing or disagreeing with a law is not really a stance, unless your argument is to your elected official that might affect some change.

That's the problem here - NO ONE is interested in resolving the issue, just fighting over the issue.

To be fair....I probably have lots of opinions that violate current US law. I would imagine that most of us do here. No?

[Green Monstah]

Well I am probably going to get flame/roasted for this...but this is my own personal belief.

1. I am not for asylum seeking that is more than one border over. We should provide asylum for people from Canada and Mexico. If you cross a border to get into Canada or Mexico, then no Asylum. At that point you are cherry picking.

2. I am all for immigration. And I am okay for folks coming here. But no social support. No housing help, food help, medical help. Now...I am not a heartless person. I think of it logically. I would be all for providing minimal support for folks to get on their feet. But the problem is, as a society, once we provide help we never stop providing help. Because that is mean and wrong. If we turned off social service support, people would stop immigrating here.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!; provided, however, that said poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse and/or homeless are from a country sharing a border with the United States of America's lower 48 states. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "border" expressly excludes an ocean, gulf, bay, inlet, strait, channel, fjord, lagoon, sound, etc., it being the express intent that the invitation to come to the U.S. for refuge is limited solely and exclusively to those citizens of either Canada or Mexico.

I like it.

[frank ryan]

My understanding is that the order had a 12:30 p.m. eastern deadline, and the Trump admin waited until the very end to comply. Which is just incredibly petty. Also, CNN is reporting that the DOJ submitted a signed declaration near 12:00 p.m. declaring (under oath) that access had been restored to all media outlets by 9:30 a.m., which it had NOT.

Also, the Chinese State Media had access and video in the Oval Office at a time when American Press did not (due to the pool coverage boycott)!! How CRAZY is that??

How are we not all recognizing that Trump is descending into madness and should be removed?

I got chastized more than once for pointing out Trump's decline. Sometimes he just speaks nonsense words. His emotional regulation and self-awareness are of even greater concern.

[frank ryan]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!; provided, however, that said poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse and/or homeless are from a country sharing a border with the United States of America's lower 48 states. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "border" expressly excludes an ocean, gulf, bay, inlet, strait, channel, fjord, lagoon, sound, etc., it being the express intent that the invitation to come to the U.S. for refuge is limited solely and exclusively to those citizens of either Canada or Mexico.

I like it.

Canadians are going to lining up to the border to even visit let alone move there

[chrisrenrut]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!; provided, however, that said poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse and/or homeless are from a country sharing a border with the United States of America's lower 48 states. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "border" expressly excludes an ocean, gulf, bay, inlet, strait, channel, fjord, lagoon, sound, etc., it being the express intent that the invitation to come to the U.S. for refuge is limited solely and exclusively to those citizens of either Canada or Mexico.

I like it.

Unless they are white South African. Then they can come in by the thousands. (Not attributing this exception to Tick, just the current administration).