The **** you talking about "we" for, you were just saying how it's normal for white people to want to maintain demographic purity in this country.

Every meaningful immigration reform effort, just like every meaningful anti-homelessness effort, comes from the left. You can't expect people to believe you agree with us about the problems and the solutions. If that was true, we wouldn't have this thread.

You're very bad at this ****. HastenDan at least knew a little bit of the left's buzzwords, but you're too sheltered to every leave the IDW podcast and Youtube world.

I agree that lots of what has happened in our immigration system prior to Trump is also bad. I think I've said so before, and probably has deserved more attention. I'm aware that I'm more aware of these things in part because Trump has drawn attention to them. I think that is at least modestly regrettable, but the intentional cruelty of the Trump admin approach to immigration is also relevant. In any case, if Trump making things worse is what causes the situation to get more attention, then OK. Again, it just seems like making things better is good. The overall ridiculousness or insanity of our politics in general doesn't change that for me.

I mean the right can't even get their **** together and stay on the same page, John21 is over here blaming Obama's open borders for thousands of dead Americans.

That ****s up the "oh you're only pretending to be mad about this because of Trump" line, because y'all were and are still mad at Obama for being too soft! That's why you elected Daddy, right? "Build the wall" ringing a ****ing bell?

I think it's whole branches of psychology not just individuals that are being neglected and especially the social psych/social constructionist sorts of perspectives that are missing.
I've been reading this book The Social Animal which deals with the experimental findings that help to shape the field and can recommend it.
I spent part of my day yesterday watching some Youtubes on ev psych and it's somewhat interesting that the biggest popularizers are E.O Wilson is an entomologist who studied ants and Peterson who is a clinical psychologist. The big takeaways I got though were that ev psych perspectives tend to come from a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes and some faulty conceptions of the mind.
But some of it really is interesting though-the stuff about child birth rates and parental sex preferences based on class is fascinating and I'm sure a whole host of other stuff. But you can take it too far too and like I said, there is always something else that will have better explanatory power

I'm open (in theory) to hearing out alternative explanations to any conjecture I make. I of course have my own biases, and they may inhibit my ability to bridge the gap, but I am always open to at least hearing a new idea out.

Sadly there's a large element of truth to this but it's worth bearing in mind that the liberal/left does these things because it's trying to steal some of the right wing vote and not because the liberal/left really supports the policies

It's the 'not quite as bad as the other lot' approach to elections that I criticise a lot when the left do it because it moves the centre ground of politics towards the right.

For someone claiming to be so perceptive, you sure are wrong about a lot of basic facts. Trump canceled longstanding programs in 2017 for not being cruel enough and for not deporting enough people. Trump implemented the zero tolerance family separation policy as a deterrent. Things may not have been acceptable under Obama, but they definitely were deliberately made worse under Trump.

I think this situation is directly related to the overall ridiculousness of our politics. When things get too polarized and too confrontational a win/lose mentality develops and one camp feels like they’re winning by depriving the opposition what they want even if under less hostile circumstances they would want the same thing.

I don't think that depolarizing our politics would make Trump voters and liberals want the same things on immigration, from polling data I've seen. I think it's basically Trump's signature issue; he opened his campaign talking about immigrants, he declared a national emergency to try to build a wall, it seems like the single most important policy issue that divides Trump supporters from Trump opponents, and there are real substantive differences. Trump supporters' attitudes towards immigrants are not just a question of sticking it to liberals. I've seen lots of survey data on this point. And liberal views about immigration are also not just about differentiating themselves from conservatives.

This seems to be the gist of it although are deporations actually even up under Trump? Everything I'm reading says they aren't.

Obama was the deporter and chief. This opened up a big can of worms when I posted statistics on deportation as a contrast to Trump's outward stance on immigration. Supposedly the inflated numbers are from throwing people in cages who wouldn't normally be, but we've also established that immigration from the Mexico border is at unprecedented levels.

It seems possible that the extreme levels of immigration are adding to the severity of the situation and it's not as simple as Trump wants these people to suffer, but it's just a theory.

slate article with some numbers
So numbers up under Trump but is it because more people are coming or because more are being detained?

Obviously. But my point is the substantive divide wasn’t near as wide pre Trump. For instance, compare what current Dems are saying or not saying re illegal immigration to what Obama had to say about illegal immigration in 2014. I’m not going to say it’s a complete 180, but the contrast is pretty stark from what I expect we’ll hear during the coming debates.

You're right that the gap between Democrats and Republicans on immigration has been widening, but I think that's been happening over maybe the last 10 years or more, and Obama was certainly not at the front of that shift.

Wasn't the whole reason Trump implemented the new rules to make it less desirable to immigrate here. Can't help but wonder if he's secretly happy about the concentration camp rhetoric. Can't imagine many refugees want to opt into a concentration camp. I'd wonder how the inflow numbers have been affected throughout this ordeal

What do people honestly believe the lefts reaction to this statement from a conservative would look like today?

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1143871724708081664

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48767529
When you see how desperate people are to find a better life (often, any life) and not being put off by drowning in the Rio Grande or the Med or the English channel then they aint being put off by a bit of rhetoric about it being a bit like dachau before it became a death camp.

If it did put off some of the less desperate then that would be only more reason to welcome those who do come and to treat them with sympathy and compassion.

Chucked out by senate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48776045

I read the article. I found this part especially interesting:

"The Senate bill passed 84-8 with most Senate Democrats voting in favour of the bi-partisan legislation.
The House bill failed by a 37-55 margin, with three Democratic Senators joining Republicans in voting against it."

-Also in the article is a quote from Pelosi saying the Senate Bill as is will not get through the House. So what exactly is going on here? I mean, it is easy to understand what is going on with Republicans. They seem pretty consistent, even if you want to argue it is consistently evil.

But with Democrats it is confusing. Senate Democrats overwhelmingly support a bipartisan bill that House democrats (at least at the rhetorical level) reject. How does that work?

Senate democrats are not as liberal as House Democrats

house democrats are less trusting that the money will be spent on the good bits rather than the bad bits?

Clearly there has to be tribalism operating. There is no chance that personal differences in political philosophy could explain that extreme a difference. I am just curious of the dynamics where Senate Democrats would overwhelmingly seemingly choose their “Senate tribe” over their “Political Party” tribe.

But maybe we should wait and see what the House actually does, as opposed to the rhetoric, before trying to analyze too much what is going on.

Lol, if you say so bro.

I'll mostly be an observer. I don't know most of the actors or even understand if/how the house and senate see their roles as different.

I'd guess so that nothing actually changes and no bill is put before Trump.