• 📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

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

There are literal neo nazis in charge of the us government, you want us to pretend otherwise?
There are other comparisons to be made even if you really want to hark back to the previous century, especially in regard to immigration policy, your current government looks remarkably like your government in the 1930s, before the war...
You should really not default to shouting "Nazi" in every discussion, some nuance is needed.
Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement "Jews are different and should be restricted." Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, "20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults." Instead of relaxing immigration quotas, American officials worked in vain to persuade Latin American countries and Great Britain to admit Jewish refugees. In January 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, as the only Jew in the Cabinet, presented the President with a "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews." Shamed into action, Roosevelt created the War Refugee Board, which, in turn, set up refugee camps in Italy, North Africa, and the United States.
 
Last edited:
There are other comparisons to be made even if you really want to hark back to the previous century, especially in regard to immigration policy, your current government looks remarkably like your government in the 1930s, before the war...
You should really not default to shouting "Nazi" in every discussion, some nuance is needed.
Well, they are American nativist white suprematists with a very questionable commitment to representative democracy certainly, so they do have those tings in common – but Nazism had some other features that set apart for sure.

What they seem to be is a particular US equivalent kind of capitalist Fascist – where actual Fascism would be something like "everything by the state, nothing outside the state", these would seem rather something like "no rights beyond those of property, and the property for us and our kind".
 
Trump is more akin to Leopold II than Hitler imho. But such comparisons are rarely helpful. :nope:

Leopold II, the Belgian king whose urge for self validation at the end of the nineteenth century led him to desire a private colony. He got one, thanks to successfully lobbying at the Berlin Colonial Conference in 1884-1885, where European heads of state divided Africa into chunks. The film’s title is taken from one of the king’s addresses, in which he stated he wanted a piece of ‘that magnificent cake’.
https://www.the-low-countries.com/a...top-motion-film-about-belgiums-colonial-past/
 
Last edited:

Curious that then-Presiden Biden thought unrestricted immigration only became a major concern for his re-election chances when GOP governors began busing illegal aliens to Dem-controlled cities (including Washington DC itself). As it developed too much of a strain on the social systems in those cities...As opposed to the border states, I guess, who were expected to absorb those same costs all by themselves and like it...

more tidbits:
- Biden believed any stronger border enforcement than zero would've alienated Latino voters. Furthermore, he considered the immigration issue as something that'd be unimportant to voters in 2024. (These assumptions of his rested on absolutely nothing. Or the article doesn't bother explaining, at least).
- marked disagreements with his team when not augmenting but simply reversing the previous administration's border policies (e.g. asylum applicants must remain in Mexico) in their entirely. Including pausing deportations for 100 days. The Supreme Court overturned this latter move.
- related to busing above: Biden rejected any effort to at least help migrants settle where they wanted after crossing the border, not knowing if there was any legal authority to do so or whether it would've simply encouraged more illegal immigration. The buses came anyway.
- Biden refused to endorse much earlier a Dem-led bill in Congress to fix the border, but relented far too late by the time Trump was winning his party's nomination. The bill failed to pass.
- whether it was a direct result or not, 55 percent of Americans polled wanted less immigration after the death of Laken Riley. Biden quickly reverses course on his previous position by closing the border to asylum applications.

the non-paywalled article in full:

How Biden Ignored Warnings and Lost Americans’ Faith in Immigration​

The Democratic president and his top advisers rejected recommendations that could have eased the border crisis that helped return Donald Trump to the White House.
New York Times photographs by Doug Mills, Mark Abramson, Todd Heisler, Meridith Kohut, and Erin Schaff.Credit...

Listen to this article · 25:00 min Learn more

Christopher Flavelle
By Christopher Flavelle
Christopher Flavelle interviewed more than 30 former Biden administration officials who worked on immigration and border policy, as well as members of Congress, state and local officials, lawyers and migrants.
  • Dec. 7, 2025
In the weeks after Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected president, advisers delivered a warning: His approach to immigration could prove disastrous.
Mr. Biden had pledged to treat unauthorized immigrants more humanely than President Donald J. Trump, who generated widespread backlash by separating migrant children from their parents.
But Mr. Biden was now president-elect, and his positions threatened to drastically increase border crossings, experts advising his transition team warned in a Zoom briefing in the final weeks of 2020, according to people with direct knowledge of that briefing. That jump, they said, could provoke a political crisis.
“Chaos” was the word the advisers had used in a memo during the campaign.
They offered a range of options to avert that crisis, by better deterring migrants. Mr. Biden seemed to grasp the risk. But he and his top aides failed to act on those recommendations.

The warnings came true, and then some. After Mr. Biden became president, migrant encounters at the southern border quickly doubled, then kept rising. New arrivals overwhelmed border stations, then border towns, and eventually major cities like New York and Denver.
Anger over illegal migration helped return Mr. Trump to the presidency, and he has enacted even more aggressive policies than those Mr. Biden first campaigned against. Mr. Trump has drawn outrage from Democrats by sending masked agents to target immigrants, often aided by National Guard soldiers.
But a New York Times examination of Mr. Biden’s record found that he and his closest advisers repeatedly rebuffed recommendations that could have addressed the border crisis faster, and eased what became a potent issue for Mr. Trump as he sought to return to the White House and justify the aggressive tactics roiling American cities today.
Former Biden administration officials told The Times that Mr. Biden and his circle of close confidants — including Ron Klain, who was chief of staff during the president’s first two years, Mike Donilon, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon and Anita Dunn — made two crucial errors.
First, they underestimated the scale of migration that was coming. Second, they failed to appreciate the political reaction to that migration — believing that stronger enforcement would alienate Latino and progressive voters, and also that a border surge would not be an important issue to most voters. Those calculations would later prove to be mistaken, with many voters, including Latinos, citing immigration as a reason for supporting Mr. Trump in 2024.

“Everybody was reacting to the excesses of the Trump administration,” said Cecilia Muñoz, who helped shape immigration policy in the Obama administration and oversaw domestic and economic policy for the Biden transition team.
Image
Rows of people are silhouetted against a yellow dust storm inside fencing.

Migrants waiting to be processed by Border Patrol agents at a makeshift camp in El Paso, Texas, in 2023.Credit...Ivan Pierre Aguirre for The New York Times
Yet as public concern over border security grew, partly in response to Mr. Biden’s own actions, his administration proved catastrophically slow to change course, former aides said. The president and his closest aides treated immigration as a distraction from other issues, such as the coronavirus pandemic and the economy.
Aides stressed that the Biden administration faced a steep challenge addressing a border crisis while adhering to outdated immigration laws. But they lamented that Mr. Biden never articulated a clear vision or pushed his cabinet secretaries to coordinate their efforts on immigration in the way that Mr. Trump has.
Mr. Biden created new legal pathways for migration to ease pressure at the border, under which more than one million people were allowed into the United States, fueling public resistance. And he failed to convince Congress to change immigration laws, dragging his feet on a crucial Senate border deal, according to the lead Republican negotiator, who said the effort might have otherwise succeeded.

Editors’ Picks​

Colin Jost Plays Pete Hegseth on ‘S.N.L.’ to Explain ‘Operation Kill Everybody’

What Kind of Homeowners’ Insurance Do You Need in a Co-op?

What Should I Do About the Bully in My Social Circle?


The shooting in Washington last month that killed one National Guard soldier and left another critically injured has renewed scrutiny of Mr. Biden’s immigration programs. The suspect arrived through Operation Allies Welcome, which offered entry to Afghans fleeing the Taliban in 2021.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden declined to make him available for an interview. She provided a statement that blamed Republicans for blocking additional funding for hiring more border agents, deploying more security technology and processing immigration cases more quickly. The statement also blamed Republicans for walking away from the proposed border bill “because Donald Trump told them to.”
“When it became clear Congress wouldn’t act, Biden took decisive action on his own,” the statement said.
Mr. Klain defended the administration’s actions on immigration as part of a broader set of priorities.
“We came in during an economic collapse and 3,000 Americans dying each day from Covid. We focused on those first and got both turned around quickly,” he said. “We ended the cruelty of Trump’s immigration policies but hit a wall on building a sensible asylum system when Republicans blocked action on needed legislation.”

But former advisers said the problem ran deeper than Republican obstruction.
The Biden White House “had no strategy, because they had no goal,” said Scott Shuchart, who joined the administration in 2022 as a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “All they had was wishing the problem would go away so that they could focus on the things they cared about.”

Year 1: Chaos, Then Paralysis​

Image
People walking past uniformed Customs and Border Protection officers wearing blue medical masks.

People crossing the International Bridge from Matamoros, Mexico, into Texas in August 2021.Credit...Daniele Volpe for The New York Times
Mr. Biden’s policy advisers sounded the alarm before he even won the election.
In August of 2020, several aides wrote a memo cautioning Mr. Biden’s inner circle that his promises — coupled with pent-up demand from the Trump years and economic hardship from Covid — could provoke a spike in border crossings.
“A potential surge could create chaos and a humanitarian crisis, overwhelm processing capacities, and imperil the agenda of the new administration,” the advisers wrote, according to a copy of the memo viewed by The Times.
Mr. Biden was confronting challenges that had been years in the making. Migrants had increasingly turned to claiming asylum. By saying they were fleeing persecution, many had been permitted to live and work in the United States for years until their claims could be heard.


Asylum
The Refugee Act of 1980 gives people the right to request asylum in the United States because of persecution or a fear of persecution in their home country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The law gives people the ability to claim asylum when they arrive at the border or once they’re already in the country. President Trump and President Biden took steps to restrict that ability; those steps have been challenged in court.

President Trump had tried deterring asylum seekers. His administration separated children from their parents. He created the “Remain in Mexico” program, forcing asylum claimants to wait in Mexico until their cases were heard. During the pandemic, he invoked a public health rule, Title 42, to turn back migrants.
The memo from Mr. Biden’s advisers offered a range of options, including making it easier to quickly reject asylum claims; holding people in “reception centers” until their cases could be heard; transferring some migrants to other countries; and continuing to make some asylum seekers wait in Mexico, while ensuring they had access to shelter.

Title 42
Title 42 is a legal provision that lets the government block the entry of people who risk introducing a communicable disease into the country. The Trump administration began applying the rule to migrants in 2020, at the start of the Covid pandemic.


Once in office, Mr. Biden had to decide between the more permissive approach that Democrats demanded and the warnings from some policy advisers to tack to the center.
He wasted no time answering.
Image
President Biden seated at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office signing a stack of executive orders while wearing a black medical mask.

President Joseph R. Biden Jr. signing executive orders on his first day in office.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
Soon after being sworn in, Mr. Biden issued a 100-day pause on deportations. He drastically narrowed the categories of unauthorized immigrants targeted for arrest. He directed his government to stop building the border wall, a centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s agenda. He suspended Remain in Mexico. He sent draft legislation to Congress to create a citizenship pathway for people in the country illegally. He kept Title 42 in place, but stopped using it to turn back children who crossed the border alone.

Remain in Mexico
At the beginning of 2019, the Trump administration started the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as “Remain in Mexico.” Under that program, people who arrived at the border seeking asylum were given a date to appear in immigration court then sent to wait in Mexico, often for six months or longer.


The speed of Mr. Biden’s actions masked deep disagreements on his team.
Some advisers warned that he was moving too quickly. Others worried that Latino voters would object if the new president softened support for migrants.
“The president and others made a decision that he wasn’t going to lose that community,” said Roberta S. Jacobson, the border czar for the first three months of the administration.
Mr. Biden’s policy changes, some of which were halted by the courts, were not the only causes of that early surge. The draw of the U.S. economy, which bounced back quickly from Covid, mattered too. But the changes signaled to migrants that the border was opening again, former aides said.

The crisis foretold by Mr. Biden’s border advisers quickly emerged.

Border Patrol encounters at the Southwest Border​

A bar chart showing the number of arrests at the Southwest border, per month from October 2015 to October 2025, highlighting when Obama, Trump and Biden were president. In 2015 and 2016, monthly arrests are about 50,000 under Obama, while a spike in 2019 under Trump nears 150,000 and then declines. A sharp increase comes in mid-2020 after the Covid Title 42 policy begins, and from 2021 to 2024 under Biden, it is mostly over 150,000 per month. Arrests fall sharply in late 2023, and under Trump's second presidency fall to well below 50,000 per month.


050,000100,000150,000200,000250,00020162018202020222024


Remain in Mexico policy begins

Title 42policy begins

End of Title 42

Policy limiting asylum claims at the border begins
Obama
Trump
Biden




Note: Chart shows monthly Border Patrol encounters, including apprehensions and expulsions.
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection
By Albert Sun
In January, the month Mr. Biden took office, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 75,316 encounters with migrants along the southwest border. By March, that number passed 169,000 — far higher than at any point during the Trump administration. Many arrivals were children, jammed into border stations ill-equipped to hold them.
The perception of chaos began to erode the pro-immigrant sentiment that had shaped Mr. Biden’s campaign promises. In March, 40 percent of Americans said they worried about illegal immigration “a great deal” — the highest number Gallup had registered in a decade.
Image
A border patrol officer on horseback grabs a migrant from Haiti by his shirt.

Tens of thousands of migrants, mostly from Haiti, took shelter under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas, in September 2021. The episode made headlines after photographers witnessed border guards chasing migrants on horseback.Credit...Paul Ratje/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Two months into his term, Mr. Biden assigned Vice President Kamala Harris with reducing illegal migration, especially from Central America, by working on the “root causes” of that migration.
Republicans labeled Ms. Harris the president’s border czar. But none of the former officials who spoke to The Times described her as a central decision maker on border policy. A spokeswoman for Ms. Harris did not respond to requests for comment.

Many former aides complained about the administration’s reluctance to push foreign governments harder to slow the movement of migrants or accept more deportation flights, as Mr. Trump has done in his second term.
Q&A With The Times’s Executive Editor
Joe Kahn responded to reader questions about how The Times covers the Trump administration and other topics.

Your Questions, Complaints and Feedback for Our Editor, Joe Kahn
Dec. 2, 2025
Aides described Mr. Biden as having no strong positions on immigration beyond two key areas. He resisted anything that looked like Mr. Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy. And he did not want to send children back across the border.
As border crossings jumped, advisers across the administration kept offering ideas to deter migrants. But political concerns remained.
“They were a little too sensitive to criticisms from the left,” Ms. Muñoz said.
Image
Vice President Kamala Harris waving on a tarmac in front of military guards and a red carpet leading to Air Force Two.

Vice President Kamala Harris visited Guatemala in June 2021 and told migrants, “Do not come.”Credit...Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
The result was paralysis. Andrea R. Flores was director for transborder security at the National Security Council early in the administration. Her first assignment, she said, was to help prepare a memo for Mr. Klain offering additional ideas for deterring migrants.

Officials could not agree on what options to present, she said, “so the memo died.”
Some Biden aides believed that the less the president said about immigration, the better. In June, the White House planned for Mr. Biden to give a speech on the border. Officials circulated the president’s remarks, Ms. Flores said, only to change their minds at the last minute.
Angela Kelley, who was then a senior immigration adviser at the Department of Homeland Security, described a collision between Mr. Biden’s campaign promises and “reality on the ground.”
“We didn’t really have a grip on it,” Ms. Kelley said.
The problem was about to get worse.

Year 2: The Border Moves North​

Image
A charter bus seen in front of the Capitol at night.

A bus carrying migrants arriving in Washington from Del Rio, Texas, in August 2022.Credit...Jason Andrew for The New York Times
One April day in 2022, a bus pulled up near the U.S. Capitol. It was carrying 12 Venezuelans, four Colombians, four Cubans and four Nicaraguans — and the start of a new phase in the immigration debate.
The bus had been chartered by the Texas Division of Emergency Management. “By busing migrants to Washington, D.C., the Biden administration will be able to more immediately meet the needs of the people they are allowing to cross our border,” Greg Abbott, the state’s Republican governor, said in a statement at the time.

The busing campaign had been under consideration since the previous summer, when local officials met with Mr. Abbott in the small border town of Del Rio seeking help with the growing flow of migrants, according to two former senior Abbott officials who spoke on the condition that they not be identified.
Initially, the buses all went to Washington, “to take the border to the president,” the officials said. In August, Mr. Abbott began sending busloads of migrants to New York City. A few weeks later, buses began heading to Chicago, then Philadelphia.
By the end of 2022, Texas had sent more than 16,000 migrants to those cities, according to data obtained by The Times last year through a records request.
The Biden administration accused Mr. Abbott of a cruel stunt. But the campaign worked. Until then, the White House viewed the migration crisis mainly as a problem for border states, former aides said. When migrants began making headlines in places like New York, that view changed.
Many Biden officials came to view Mr. Abbott’s campaign as the point Democrats lost the debate.
“I don’t think we ever recovered,” said Deborah Fleischaker, then the assistant director for policy at ICE.

Image
Gov. Greg Abbott shaking hands with Texas National Guard soldiers.

“By busing migrants to Washington, D.C., the Biden administration will be able to more immediately meet the needs of the people they are allowing to cross our border,” said Gov. Greg Abbott.Credit...Sergio Flores for The New York Times
Mr. Abbott’s campaign echoed an idea that some Biden officials had been advocating for internally: using federal resources to help migrants reach their destinations, but in coordination with the cities receiving them.
Jason Houser, then the chief of staff at ICE, said he had pushed the idea partly to help make the movement of migrants more orderly. He said Mr. Biden’s senior advisers refused.
Some officials contended that the Department of Homeland Security lacked congressional authority to transport immigrants not in government custody. Others felt that providing free transportation would draw more migrants.
If the Biden administration had worked to coordinate migrants’ travel in the United States, “it would have made a profound difference,” Mike Johnston, the Democratic mayor of Denver, said in an interview.

As Mr. Abbott’s campaign ramped up, White House officials debated taking executive action on the border, Mr. Klain said in an interview. But Kyrsten Sinema, then a Democratic senator from Arizona, had begun talking to Republican lawmakers about border legislation, he said. Mr. Biden wanted to give that effort a chance.
“We were trying to cut a deal,” Mr. Klain said.
But Democrats were running out of time.

Year 3: Trial and Error​

Image
Three men descending from a ladder attached to train cars.

Migrants from Venezuela traveling on a train in Mexico toward the United States around the time the Biden administration lifted Title 42 in May 2023.Credit...Alejandro Cegarra for The New York Times
By the halfway mark of Mr. Biden’s term, the failure of his approach was impossible to ignore.
The Border Patrol reported 2.2 million apprehensions along the Mexican border the previous year, up from 400,000 the year Mr. Biden was elected. In 2023, the number of unauthorized migrants in the country who were not detained and were waiting for their cases to be resolved surpassed 6 million, almost doubling since 2020.
The White House began experimenting. In January, the Department of Homeland Security started admitting migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, provided they could find an American sponsor, pass a background check and pay for a plane ticket. By giving those migrants an official way to enter, the program — called C.H.N.V., after the names of the four countries — sought to reduce their incentive to cross the border illegally.

C.H.N.V.
A program introduced by the Biden administration at the start of 2023, awarding two-year residency permits to people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who had U.S.-based sponsors and passed background checks. More than half a million people entered through the program before President Trump canceled it.


C.H.N.V. was an evolution of more targeted migrant programs introduced earlier in the Biden administration, starting with Operation Allies Welcome, which allowed the suspect in last month’s attack on the National Guard troops into the United States. In 2022, the administration started a similar entry program for Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion of their country.
Republicans accused the administration of letting in unauthorized immigrants. And no one at the Department of Homeland Security was responsible for ensuring that people who entered through C.H.N.V. left the country when they were supposed to, according to a report this year by the agency’s inspector general.
Still, C.H.N.V. succeeded in reducing the number of people from those four countries approaching the border. But overall crossings remained high.
In May 2023, the administration replaced Title 42 with new restrictions. Asylum seekers were supposed to book an appointment through a mobile app, CBP One, which offered a limited number of openings.


CBP One
CBP One was a mobile phone app introduced by the Biden administration in 2023. People trying to file an asylum claim at the border were first directed to get an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through the app, which could sometimes take months. More than 900,000 people eventually booked appointments using the app; the Trump administration has ordered many of them to leave.

The administration also raised the threshold for asylum for people who did not use the app. But the new restrictions failed to stem the tide. Border encounters fell briefly, then rebounded.
Image
People seated in a circle at a tent camp looking at their mobile phones.

Asylum seekers in Mexico trying to access the CBP One app in May 2023.Credit...Meridith Kohut for The New York Times
Adding to the pressure, Mr. Abbott expanded his busing campaign. In May, Denver received its first busload from Texas.

Texas eventually sent more than 19,000 migrants to Denver. The city of about 720,000 wound up taking in 43,000 of them.
The influx became a crisis for Mr. Johnston, who was elected mayor three weeks after the first bus arrived. As the numbers grew, he repeatedly asked the Biden administration for money and policy changes to address what he called a “humanitarian crisis.”
Image
A portrait of Michael Johnston in his office.

The influx of migrants quickly became a crisis for Mike Johnston, a former high school principal who was elected as Denver’s mayor three weeks after the first bus of migrants arrived from Texas.Credit...Jimena Peck for The New York Times
The costs spread. The main safety-net hospital spent millions of dollars treating additional patients with no insurance. The school system made room for more than 5,000 additional students. Denver spent almost $100 million trying to manage the crisis.
The city was not alone. By September, Texas had sent tens of thousands of migrants to Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia and New York.

“This issue will destroy New York City,” Mayor Eric Adams told a town hall that month. “The city we knew, we’re about to lose.”

Year 4: The Reckoning​

Image
Senator Chris Murphy speaking to reporters in the Capitol.

Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, led his party’s negotiations over a bill to fix the border crisis.Credit...Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
On a Sunday evening in February 2024, Senator Christopher S. Murphy was in his Capitol Hill office, watching the collapse of the Biden administration’s last best chance to manage its immigration problem.
Mr. Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, had led his party’s negotiations over a bill to fix the border crisis by giving the government authority to restrict asylum claims. The bill had taken Mr. Murphy and his Republican counterpart, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, months to agree upon.
Within hours, as Mr. Murphy watched Republicans attack the bill on social media, he knew it would fail. Early the next day, Mr. Trump delivered the death blow. “This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats,” he wrote on social media. He added: “It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Don’t be STUPID!!!”

“We had our votes on Sunday afternoon,” Mr. Murphy said. “We didn’t have them on Monday morning.”
The bill could have provided what Mr. Biden needed as he ran for re-election: a drop in border crossings, blessed by both parties in Congress, with enough time before Election Day for voters to change their minds about Democrats supporting open borders.
Democrats blamed Mr. Trump for sinking the deal. But Mr. Lankford pointed to another culprit: the Biden administration’s own foot-dragging.
When negotiations had gained momentum the previous fall, the White House had refused to get involved, according to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lankford. “We don’t want our fingerprints on these negotiations,” Mr. Lankford recalled the White House telling him. Only as border crossings continued to spike did the administration relent, he said.
Looking back, Mr. Lankford said he believed the delay was critical. If Mr. Biden had signed on sooner, he said, the talks could have produced an agreement before the end of 2023. At that point, Mr. Trump, who still faced opposition for the Republican presidential nomination, might not have had the clout to torpedo the deal.
Then Mr. Trump defeated Ron DeSantis in Iowa, and Nikki Haley in New Hampshire. By the time the border deal concluded in February 2024, “it was very clear that Mr. Trump was going to win” the nomination, Mr. Lankford said. And Mr. Trump was eager to score political points off Mr. Biden’s immigration record.

Image
President Trump speaking to a crowd of supporters with large posters of men in orange jumpsuits.

President Trump used immigration and allegations of crime as a key selling point of his 2024 campaign.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
The deal’s failure left Mr. Biden in a bind. Border encounters were still higher than at any point in the Trump administration. The estimated number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States — 11 million when Mr. Biden took office — was approaching 14 million. And the election was nine months away.
Less than three weeks after the Senate deal collapsed, a 22-year-old nursing student, Laken Riley, was killed on the University of Georgia campus. When a Venezuelan man who had entered the country illegally was charged with the murder, her death became shorthand for Democrats’ failures. Mr. Trump met with Ms. Riley’s family and said that she would still be alive “if Joe Biden had not willfully and maliciously eviscerated the borders.”
By June, 55 percent of Americans said total immigration levels should fall, the highest share measured by Gallup since just after the Sept. 11 attacks.
On June 4, 2024, five months before Election Day, Mr. Biden reversed course. He issued an order all but closing the border to asylum applications, a move that was far tougher than the proposals that had been rejected during his first year in office. Border encounters quickly fell.

Why Mr. Biden waited so long to effectively seal the border has become one of the defining questions of his presidency.
Some aides feared that closing the border would be overturned by the courts. Others said that principles mattered. “It was truly believed — deeply, by many, including the president — that that was not in keeping with our values,” said Ms. Jacobson, the former border czar.
Three weeks after closing the border, the president faced off against Mr. Trump in a debate at CNN’s Atlanta studios. Asked why voters should trust him to solve the crisis, Mr. Biden flubbed it.
“What I’ve done — since I’ve changed the law, what’s happened?” said Mr. Biden, who had not changed the law. “I’ve changed it in a way that now you’re in a situation where there are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally.”
Mr. Biden went on: “I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the … the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.”

“I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Mr. Trump responded. “I don’t think he knows what he said either.”
Within a month, Mr. Biden left the race.
On Mr. Trump’s first day back in the White House, he effectively blocked asylum claims entirely. He also shut down Mr. Biden’s border entry app, ordered the military to the border and directed ICE to drastically expand its scope of arrests and deportations.
“The American people deserve a federal government that puts their interests first,” read Mr. Trump’s executive order.
The Biden experiment was over. A very different kind of experiment was just beginning.
Reporting was contributed by Hamed Aleaziz, Robert Draper, Adam Entous, Reid J. Epstein, Shane Goldmacher, Miriam Jordan, J. David Goodman, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Nicholas Nehamas, Tyler Pager, Michael D. Shear and Eileen Sullivan. Emily Powell and Julie Tate contributed research.
Christopher Flavelle is a Times reporter covering how President Trump is transforming the federal government.
 
Last edited:
That's what's at risk of happening right now in Europe. In France specifically, far-right went from a fringe of 5-10 % raving extremists in the 1990s to by now the first party by far (30 to 40 % of the electorate), predicted to win against every other candidate in the next presidential (the most resounding defeat being polled to be inflicted by 75 % to 25 % on the very guy who is the closest to your political leaning, BTW).
So what's worse : actually dealing with what the vast majority of the population considers a problem, and do it in a way that limits the damage, or pretend it's not a problem because only racists and fascists see it as a problem, and ending up with the actual true fascists and racists dealing it in the way they see fit ? Or maybe just bet on chancing on having someone who is loud in claims but timid in actions (like Meloni, who manage to make a grand show of actually doing nothing), which feels like a really, really responsible way of dealing with it all ?
and that is precisely what happened in the US in 2024; see my previous post
 
Last edited:
People gotta live somewhere. High demand lack of supply prices go up.

"Don't have children, as this will cause prices to increase"
-no one ever

Your own words. Don't seem to hold very well right now.

I am growing tired of this specific conversation as several of my attempts to move the discussion onto new ground have been responded to with points that tend to circle the discussion back onto the same ground we have already covered.

He said that increasing the population by 30 % causes an increase in house price.
Care to explain how you jump from that to "let's kill 30 % of the population" ?

Well, it usually starts with "this group is causing our economic problems" then goes from "we have curtail this group's civil, political, social rights" to "we need to make it so unattractive to live here this group will just leave" to "deport this group" to "kill this group." This is not a hypothetical, this is precisely how the Nazis dealt with what they called the 'Jewish question' over time.

I spent a significant amount of the thread explaining it, so I'm going for a short summary

She is asking for concrete things that you yourself have experienced in your everyday life, and you answered with theory.
 
"Don't have children, as this will cause prices to increase"
-no one ever



I am growing tired of this specific conversation as several of my attempts to move the discussion onto new ground have been responded to with points that tend to circle the discussion back onto the same ground we have already covered.



Well, it usually starts with "this group is causing our economic problems" then goes from "we have curtail this group's civil, political, social rights" to "we need to make it so unattractive to live here this group will just leave" to "deport this group" to "kill this group." This is not a hypothetical, this is precisely how the Nazis dealt with what they called the 'Jewish question' over time.



She is asking for concrete things that you yourself have experienced in your everyday life, and you answered with theory.

Once again ignoring numbers. A link to pdf.

People aren't cranking out kids as fast as immigration. Even if the did they live with their parents generally until 18 years old.

Adult immigrants need a house right now. If they were coming in at a vastlybliwer rate (50-75%) the pressure on everything would be a lot less.

Even socialism couldn't keep up with the numbers as there was no more building capacity. You cant magic up a house and infrastructure that fast.
 

Curious that then-Presiden Biden thought unrestricted immigration only became a major concern for his re-election chances when GOP governors began busing illegal aliens to Dem-controlled cities (including Washington DC itself). As it developed too much of a strain on the social systems in those cities...As opposed to the border states, I guess, who were expected to absorb those same costs all by themselves and like it...

more tidbits:
- Biden believed any stronger border enforcement than zero would've alienated Latino voters. Furthermore, he considered the immigration issue as something that'd be unimportant to voters in 2024. (These assumptions of his rested on absolutely nothing. Or the article doesn't bother explaining, at least).
- marked disagreements with his team when not augmenting but simply reversing the previous administration's border policies (e.g. asylum applicants must remain in Mexico) in their entirely. Including pausing deportations for 100 days. The Supreme Court overturned this latter move.
- related to busing above: Biden rejected any effort to at least help migrants settle where they wanted after crossing the border, not knowing if there was any legal authority to do so or whether it would've simply encourage more illegal immigration. The buses came anyway.
- Biden refused to endorse much earlier a Dem-led bill in Congress to fix the border, but relented far too late by the time Trump was winning his party's nomination. The bill failed to pass.
- whether it was a direct result or not, 55 percent of Americans polled wanted less immigration after the death of Laken Riley. Biden quickly reverses course on his previous position by closing the border to asylum applications.

the non-paywalled article in full:

Trumps a bastard but bussing immigrants to blue areas was kinda genius.

Immigration in border states is abstract to voters in NYC or New England.

Different dynamic over there vs here. Its a hot button issue and its fueling the right in USA and Europe.

Here not so much the (political) right loves it.

I suspect being pro immigration is caught up in being anti Trump.

Wonder if a more democratic socialist for citizens type thing will ever take off? Hmmmn.
 
I am growing tired of this specific conversation as several of my attempts to move the discussion onto new ground have been responded to with points that tend to circle the discussion back onto the same ground we have already covered.
It's not "covered" when you actually refuse repeatedly to answer the same two questions which are fundamental to your entire argument.

"it's bad because it's racist"
"it doesn't actually consider people worth less, which is what is bad in racism"
"maybe in this case, but racism is also bad for other reasons"
"which ones ?"
"because it considers people worth less"
"you yourself said that it's bad for other reasons than considering people worth less, so which ones ?"
"I'm getting bored that you circle back to points already covered"

That's just a blatant display of dishonesty right here.
(as for the question "who should decide on the criteria for people to get citizenship", you simply completely ignored it and pretended it away)

"trying to move the discussion to new grounds" when you deliberately ignore/avoid questions about the basis of your entire argumentation sounds pretty fishy.
 
Trumps a bastard but bussing immigrants to blue areas was kinda genius.

Immigration in border states is abstract to voters in NYC or New England.
A stunt though it was, it was an unbeatable political stunt, IMO: for all the talk about what's the harm letting anyone come in who wants to and who are we to say no, these politicians just went "ok well then here you go!" and dumped them.
 
A stunt though it was, it was an unbeatable political stunt, IMO: for all the talk about what's the harm letting anyone come in who wants to and who are we to say no, these politicians just went "ok well then here you go!" and dumped them.
The problem with this "stunt" was that the Red states lied to get people on those busses. They told the folks being bussed that the big cities would give them money and jobs. Lying to ignorant people to score political points may be fun, but it is fundamentally wrong. Would you approve of telling homeless people in Albuquerque that if they request being sent to another city they will get free money and shelter, and then send them all Harrisburg? Har har such fun we can have at their expense and yours too.
 
It's not "covered" when you actually refuse repeatedly to answer the same two questions which are fundamental to your entire argument.

"it's bad because it's racist"
"it doesn't actually consider people worth less, which is what is bad in racism"

I'm pretty sure that whats actually bad in racism is the negative outcomes for the people involved on a personal level, and creation of a stratified, unequal society. Measurable things. Concrete things.

Technically, you have to be permitted to have a weird aesthetic or spiritual valuing of people according to nonsensical criteria, though such opinions shouldn't expect special protection if voiced in public.
 
The problem with this "stunt" was that the Red states lied to get people on those busses. They told the folks being bussed that the big cities would give them money and jobs. Lying to ignorant people to score political points may be fun, but it is fundamentally wrong. Would you approve of telling homeless people in Albuquerque that if they request being sent to another city they will get free money and shelter, and then send them all Harrisburg? Har har such fun we can have at their expense and yours too.

How tgey got them there was irrelevant.

It was brilliant. We love immigration. No no not in our back yards.

Add in stereotypes of out of touch liberal coastal elite.
 
How tgey got them there was irrelevant.

It was brilliant. We love immigration. No no not in our back yards.

Add in stereotypes of out of touch liberal coastal elite.
Naturally, you like the political theater without any actual regard for the individuals that are treated badly. You would make a fine MAGA follower if you lived in the US.
 
Naturally, you like the political theater without any actual regard for the individuals that are treated badly. You would make a fine MAGA follower if you lived in the US.

Didn't say I agreed with it.

You win or you lose. GoP fights dirty. GoP fights to win. Progressives eat jellybeans. And purity test.

You win or you die. Cersei Lannister.

Losing has very real repercussions on people. Try not losing?

If you don't aquire power your theory/ideology is as useful as tit's on a bull. You have to campaign in America as it is. Not as you desire.

You're getting clowned on with social stuff. Europe as well. Main issues are economic. Fix that social stuff will take care of itself. Its not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
It was brilliant. We love immigration. No no not in our back yards.
What evidence do you have that anyone actually paid attention to this beyond the archtypical 15 minutes?
Progressives eat jellybeans.
What? Are you okay there?
And purity test.
People whine about leftists supposedly overusing the term fascist, all the while screaming purity testing 24/7. The irony.
You're getting clowned on with social stuff. Europe as well. Main issues are economic. Fix that social stuff will take care of itself. Its not rocket science.
The Culture War exists as a distraction because the right knows they lose on economics.
 
Back
Top Bottom