How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?

[Kaitzilla]

Trump really bullied Columbia yesterday , a friendly country that refused 2 military plane loads of migrants.

They didn't like seeing them transported in handcuffs and leg chains.

https://www.axios.com/2025/01/26/trump-deportation-colombia-gustavo-petro

Trump, seemingly from the golf course, put 25% tariffs on all imports from Columbia, cancelled visas, and put sanctions on certain officials.

He also threatened 50% tariffs next week.

Columbia retaliated with 25% tariffs on imports from USA.

Then, a few hours later, Columbia agreed to Trump's terms.

 

[Lexicus]

Then, a few hours later, Columbia agreed to Trump's terms.

Not shocking; of course, despite simpletons labelling this "total victory for the USA" every instance of the US throwing its weight around in this manner causes every country in the hemisphere to eye the exit from US hegemony a little more longingly, until suddenly one day we're doing a "special military operation" across half of South America to keep the Chinese out.

 

[Archon8]

Did you even read what you posted? The article argues that these early stances against undocumented people were a mistake and contributed to the UFW's ineffectiveness.

Did you read what you wrote that I replied to? I don't care about if the UFW was effective, I was just countering your point that Cesar Chavez was pro immigration. He was not.

Anyway, a more complete take on this can be found here:

Cesar Chavez’s nuanced views on undocumented workers & immigration

Critics of Cesar Chavez resurrect 50-plus-year-old film clips where he used words like “illegal” or even “wetback.” Dolores Huerta observes Chavez considered himself a Chicano who came of age politically in the 1950s and ‘60s. “That’s just how Chicanos talked in those days,” she says. In later years

ufw.org

That is nowhere close to a complete take, and is actually heavily biased.

The complicated legacy of César Chávez

The labor organizer – a Mexican American with radical views on immigration, who swore by nonviolence but subsidized an illegal border patrol operation – was a man of many contradictions.

www.kut.org

From that article:

In the mid-70s, Chávez launched what he called the Illegals Campaign, an effort to raise awareness about illegal immigration and report undocumented workers to federal authorities.

”The idea was – much like we’ve heard today – ‘Well, the Border Patrol isn’t doing a good job at keeping people from crossing illegally. So we’re going to have to go out and do it ourselves,’ “ Pawel said.

The most intense aspects of this informal effort, however, did not take place in the form of secret phone calls to the government; they took place right along the border. In an effort led by César’s cousin Manuel Chávez, reports began to emerge of Mexican immigrants being threatened, beaten and robbed as they tried to cross over into the United States.

At one point, the patrol operation was so large, it employed 300 people and cost the UFW $80,000 a week.

To Chávez, the civil rights era leader who swore nonviolence, any influx of foreign labor represented a threat to the farmworkers’ movement. The people who crossed the border illegally were in search of a better life. But they were also scabs, willing to do the jobs that American farmworkers were organizing to improve.

 

[Lexicus]

Did you read what you wrote that I replied to? I don't care about if the UFW was effective, I was just countering your point that Cesar Chavez was pro immigration. He was not.

His views changed over time as he became older and wiser. This is a bit like quoting Lincoln in the 1850s to say he wasn't against slavery; true of Lincoln in the 1850s but not in 1864.

I did not bring up Cesar Chavez in the first place. I know you don't care about whether the UFW was effective; your whole pose of caring about the welfare of workers is nonsense as you are a self-proclaimed "economic conservative."

 

[Archon8]

His views changed over time as he became older and wiser. This is a bit like quoting Lincoln in the 1850s to say he wasn't against slavery; true of Lincoln in the 1850s but not in 1864.

I did not bring up Cesar Chavez in the first place. I know you don't care about whether the UFW was effective; your whole pose of caring about the welfare of workers is nonsense as you are a self-proclaimed "economic conservative."

Let me know if you're able to express an opinion without also attaching an insult, and we can have an intelligent conversation.

 

[danjuno]

Let me know if you're able to express an opinion without misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Keep it civil please if you want to continue posting in this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

What % of USA supports deportation atm?

I've seen anywhere from 55%-65%.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Typically, it is nuanced.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-deporting-immigrants-who-are-us-illegally

Washington, D.C., January 19, 2025 – A new Axios/Ipsos poll finds that a majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally as a general concept. However, that support drops significantly if caveats are added describing specific mechanisms to conduct those deportations, such as separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin, using active-duty military, or using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation. Partisan splits exist, as Republicans are significantly more likely to support deportations under any condition than Democrats or independents.

1. Two-thirds of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. However there is very little support for deporting legal immigrants.

• Sixty-six percent support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Republicans (93%) are more likely to show support than Democrats (43%) and independents (67%).
• Few Americans (11%) support deporting immigrants who are in the country legally.

2. While support exists for deportations on a general level, it declines considerably as specific policies or outcomes to achieve the deportations are included.

• Just 38% of Americans support using active duty military to find and detain undocumented immigrants. In the same vein, only 28% support using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation.
• A third of Americans show support for quickly deporting detained immigrants, even if it involves separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin (34%), and deporting immigrants that came to the U.S. illegally as children (34%).
• Few Americans strongly supporteach of these measures:
  • Using active duty military to find and detain undocumented immigrants in U.S. cities and towns (16%)
  • Quickly deporting detained immigrants, even if it involves separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin (16%)
  • Deporting immigrants that came to the U.S. illegally as children (14%)
  • Using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation (8%)
• Similar to generally deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, Republicans are significantly more likely to support these measures than Democrats and independents.

About the Study​

This Axios/Ipsos poll was conducted by Ipsos from January 10 to January 12, 2025, using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,025 adults age 18 or older. The sample includes 301 Republicans, 309 Democrats, and 294 independents.

The survey was conducted using KnowledgePanel, the largest and most well-established online probability-based panel that is representative of the adult U.S. population. Our recruitment process employs a scientifically developed addressed-based sampling methodology using the latest Delivery Sequence File of the USPS – a database with full coverage of all delivery points in the U.S. Households invited to join the panel are randomly selected from all available households in the U.S. Persons in the sampled households are invited to join and participate in the panel. Those selected who do not already have internet access are provided a tablet and internet connection at no cost to the panel member. Those who join the panel and who are selected to participate in a survey are sent a unique password-protected log-in used to complete surveys online. As a result of our recruitment and sampling methodologies, samples from KnowledgePanel cover all households regardless of their phone or internet status and findings can be reported with a margin of sampling error and projected to the general population.

The study was conducted in English. The data for the total sample were weighted to adjust for gender by age, race/ethnicity, education, Census region, metropolitan status, and household income. Party ID benchmarks are from the 2024 NPORS annual survey. The demographic benchmarks came from the 2023 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS).

• Gender (Male, Female) by Age (18–29, 30–44, 45-59 and 60+)
• Race/Hispanic Ethnicity (White Non-Hispanic, Black Non-Hispanic, Other, Non-Hispanic, Hispanic, 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic)
• Education (Less than High School, High School, Some College, Bachelor or higher)
• Census Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
• Metropolitan status (Metro, non-Metro)
• Household Income (Under $25,000, $25,000-$49,999, $50,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,999, $100,000-$149,999, $150,000+)
• Party ID (Democrat, Lean Democrat, Republican, Lean Republican, Independent/Something else)

The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, for results based on the entire sample of adults. The margin of sampling error takes into account the design effect, which was 1.08. For Republicans, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.8 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.06. For Democrats, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.8 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.09. For independents, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.9 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.08.

The margin of sampling error is higher and varies for results based on sub-samples. In our reporting of the findings, percentage points are rounded off to the nearest whole number. As a result, percentages in a given table column may total slightly higher or lower than 100%. In questions that permit multiple responses, columns may total substantially more than 100%, depending on the number of different responses offered by each respondent.

 

[Gorbles]

There is no obvious reason why I should consider births when the thread title is about immigration not about births.

And alluding to a population increase due to births without considering that they are offset by deaths is disingenuous.

But then you'd chuck any instant red herring sentence in you can to derail a sensible discussion.

No, I'm trying to approach it from your perspective. If you see a difference between immigrants and births r.e. economic burden, what difference is there?

This might seem silly, or a "red herring", but if you can't say it plainly, and I can't guess (because that'd be putting words in your mouth, or worse), then my counterargument stands. To me, there is no difference. Lives are lives.

Trying to be more charitable than the last observation, which I stand by nonetheless.

Hah, well, you tried. After the fact. Civility in mind, I asked in good faith. I can't do the bigger answer justice because you stand by the shorter one. No matter. It is what it is.

 

[Zardnaar]

Typically, it is nuanced.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/majority-americans-support-deporting-immigrants-who-are-us-illegally

Washington, D.C., January 19, 2025 – A new Axios/Ipsos poll finds that a majority of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally as a general concept. However, that support drops significantly if caveats are added describing specific mechanisms to conduct those deportations, such as separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin, using active-duty military, or using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation. Partisan splits exist, as Republicans are significantly more likely to support deportations under any condition than Democrats or independents.

1. Two-thirds of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. However there is very little support for deporting legal immigrants.

• Sixty-six percent support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Republicans (93%) are more likely to show support than Democrats (43%) and independents (67%).
• Few Americans (11%) support deporting immigrants who are in the country legally.

2. While support exists for deportations on a general level, it declines considerably as specific policies or outcomes to achieve the deportations are included.

• Just 38% of Americans support using active duty military to find and detain undocumented immigrants. In the same vein, only 28% support using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation.
• A third of Americans show support for quickly deporting detained immigrants, even if it involves separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin (34%), and deporting immigrants that came to the U.S. illegally as children (34%).
• Few Americans strongly supporteach of these measures:
  • Using active duty military to find and detain undocumented immigrants in U.S. cities and towns (16%)
  • Quickly deporting detained immigrants, even if it involves separating families or sending people to countries other than their country of origin (16%)
  • Deporting immigrants that came to the U.S. illegally as children (14%)
  • Using money allocated to the U.S. military to pay for deportation (8%)
• Similar to generally deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally, Republicans are significantly more likely to support these measures than Democrats and independents.

About the Study​

This Axios/Ipsos poll was conducted by Ipsos from January 10 to January 12, 2025, using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,025 adults age 18 or older. The sample includes 301 Republicans, 309 Democrats, and 294 independents.

The survey was conducted using KnowledgePanel, the largest and most well-established online probability-based panel that is representative of the adult U.S. population. Our recruitment process employs a scientifically developed addressed-based sampling methodology using the latest Delivery Sequence File of the USPS – a database with full coverage of all delivery points in the U.S. Households invited to join the panel are randomly selected from all available households in the U.S. Persons in the sampled households are invited to join and participate in the panel. Those selected who do not already have internet access are provided a tablet and internet connection at no cost to the panel member. Those who join the panel and who are selected to participate in a survey are sent a unique password-protected log-in used to complete surveys online. As a result of our recruitment and sampling methodologies, samples from KnowledgePanel cover all households regardless of their phone or internet status and findings can be reported with a margin of sampling error and projected to the general population.

The study was conducted in English. The data for the total sample were weighted to adjust for gender by age, race/ethnicity, education, Census region, metropolitan status, and household income. Party ID benchmarks are from the 2024 NPORS annual survey. The demographic benchmarks came from the 2023 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey (CPS).

• Gender (Male, Female) by Age (18–29, 30–44, 45-59 and 60+)
• Race/Hispanic Ethnicity (White Non-Hispanic, Black Non-Hispanic, Other, Non-Hispanic, Hispanic, 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic)
• Education (Less than High School, High School, Some College, Bachelor or higher)
• Census Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
• Metropolitan status (Metro, non-Metro)
• Household Income (Under $25,000, $25,000-$49,999, $50,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,999, $100,000-$149,999, $150,000+)
• Party ID (Democrat, Lean Democrat, Republican, Lean Republican, Independent/Something else)

The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, for results based on the entire sample of adults. The margin of sampling error takes into account the design effect, which was 1.08. For Republicans, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.8 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.06. For Democrats, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.8 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.09. For independents, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.9 percentage points, and the design effect is 1.08.

The margin of sampling error is higher and varies for results based on sub-samples. In our reporting of the findings, percentage points are rounded off to the nearest whole number. As a result, percentages in a given table column may total slightly higher or lower than 100%. In questions that permit multiple responses, columns may total substantially more than 100%, depending on the number of different responses offered by each respondent.

Tgat 66% was provably the one I saw indirectly. I wasn't sure hw good the source is.

I dint think deporting illegals is hot button issue.

In NZ no visa you're risking deportation. Illegals aren't a massive issue though usually called over stayers. As in they've overstayed their visas.

No visa though no access to cheap Healthcare, welfare, most jobs etc. Everything is centralized.

Probably not paying tax either.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is what it is.

Well, what bigger can I appeal to than self interest, then? The question you asked(why to care) was firmly set with a prefaced context of self interest(Which I found fair. This is a political question, right?).

So it was answered in such. So, what bigger can I appeal to you on? Without such a shared scope to speak within, I'm left with my followup post: ie cynically showing a belief in nothing but self interest in the governing class and how it is currently playing out within the general political context of the topic of the thread. Yes?

 

[Gorbles]

Well, what bigger can I appeal to than self interest, then?

I have no interest in the confines of the governing class. Cynical or not.

You can enjoy all your negative stereotypes, but your answers still miss the mark. Like I said: it is what it is.

I really don't want to be drawn further. As usual, I offer a PM to avoid seeming abrupt.

 

[Lexicus]

It's about class interest!

 

[Farm Boy]

I have no interest in the confines of the governing class. Cynical or not.

You can enjoy all your negative stereotypes, but your answers still miss the mark. Like I said: it is what it is.

I really don't want to be drawn further. As usual, I offer a PM to avoid seeming abrupt.

No idea what you mean, tbh!

 

[Voidwalkin]

No. There is a common dogma about it, and a "racist" stigma attached to disagreeing with it, which push lots of people to pretend they only care about illegal immigration - because that one should be impossible to defend, though that doesn't actually prevent people from doing just that - despite them disliking even the legal one. It's mostly about the "quantity" and "quality" though - few people care when immigration is small and about wealthy, educated migrants. Lots more care when the numbers are large and about poor and uneducated migrants.
Nothing groundbreaking, but the clash comes from said stigma which tends to make the issue pretty polarizing.

Accurate. It's radicalized the issue. No matter which side one is on, racist, or not racist, looms.

Whereever you see the debate, it's never far from the speakers mind. "I'm not racist, but I think traffic is getting too heavy, more people would be lowering QoL". The preemptive denial of racist origins of opposition is often there.

26 pages in and the only guy I can agree with is the guy who hates deluded trannies with a bear avatar. What a crazy world. If only a logical understanding of the world lent itself directly to my personal preferences but I have to admit I’m probably delusional also and the world isn’t especially sane. Ah, well. May the bulk of you choke on your liberalism as you stomp on the necks of the third world to get your fudging coffee and hot ⁷chocolate. Truly, I am not the greatest casualty in this world where we have to pretend Americans who wont even fudging go outside or get a job are the ones being screwed over by the illegals. It’s a failed society and I hope everyone here has a good inheritance because otherwise the optimism is just plain depressing.

I prefer chai.

 

[Gorbles]

Whereever you see the debate, it's never far from the speakers mind. "I'm not racist, but I think traffic is getting too heavy, more people would be lowering QoL". The preemptive denial of racist origins of opposition is often there.

Presumably because there's a complete lack of care for any potential impact from any other origin, and a focus on immigration to the exclusion of all other things.

That said, qualitative arguments by definition are going to struggle to be labelled the label you are cautioning about being used. The problem is the lack of qualitative arguments, the lack of data. Nearly all data around immigration trends positive - indeed, a lot of the data provided by Birdjaguar and others has been positive. Meanwhile I have politely asked - repeatedly - for sources on claims made from the opposite direction, and am still waiting.

 

[Archon8]

Presumably because there's a complete lack of care for any potential impact from any other origin, and a focus on immigration to the exclusion of all other things.

That said, qualitative arguments by definition are going to struggle to be labelled the label you are cautioning about being used. The problem is the lack of qualitative arguments, the lack of data. Nearly all data around immigration trends positive - indeed, a lot of the data provided by Birdjaguar and others has been positive. Meanwhile I have politely asked - repeatedly - for sources on claims made from the opposite direction, and am still waiting.

If you're asking for negative impact of illegal immigration, there are plenty of sources I can link you. If you're talking about legal immigration, I agree that its impact is overwhelmingly positive.

 

[Gorbles]

If you're asking for negative impact of illegal immigration, there are plenty of sources I can link you. If you're talking about legal immigration, I agree that its impact is overwhelmingly positive.

This is another angle that is hard to keep track of, because different posters prioritise illegal and legal migration differently. Akka seems to weight both negatively, and Voidwalkin was agreeing with his general sentiments.

That said, it would actually have value to see what sources are available for the impact of illegal immigration, even though I'll admit upfront I feel we may disagree on the root cause.

It's very similar to homelessness in a way. The magic money tree exists for 2000lb bombs or whatever the going munitions are, but not for subsidising housing. It gets into a person's political beliefs very quickly, vs. being evidence of an actual problem.

 

[Ordnael]

Your boos mean nothing. I've seen what makes you cheer.

Right back at you...just happy we agree on something