Public sentiment regarding US immigration reform is characterized by deep division and frustration over current policies, with some advocating for stricter enforcement and others calling for more compassion towards undocumented immigrants. Economic concerns and cultural fears contribute to a growing anti-immigrant sentiment, while many express cynicism about political inaction and skepticism toward new political parties proposing reforms. Calls for a balanced and humane approach are prevalent, highlighting the need for comprehensive solutions.

U.S. Government

Reform Party

I think a good place to start would be by really trying to figure out what is bothering people about the current state of immigration. Luckily, projects like the [Braver Angels Citizens Commission on Immigration](https://braverangels.org/immigration/) do exactly that. I mean it's basically all old people, but there's still valuable info here. They're still in the middle of gathering info, but according to their [May 2025 Update ](https://youtu.be/pCxYFD-TkW8?si=IXwaixzTaAwoAQJh)they're making progress. I think that watching recordings of these workshops could provide insight.

RadioRavenRide

A more open and popular immigration policy sounds a feels difficult.. I personally don’t think the left can do enough to make voters happy that would also keep themselves happy. It requires liberals to address not only the economic but also the cultural dimensions of immigration. While your ideas around fiscal contribution and independence from welfare may help reduce native citizens’ anxiety and distrust, they do not fully respond to the deeper concerns around social cohesion and national identity. 

Assimilation.. and I want to stress it so it’s understood it’s not as forced conformity but as a mutual process of cultural adaptation, should be central to any liberal immigration reform. Liberals can champion policies that lower barriers to entry while investing in language access, civic education, and integration programs that promote shared values and encourage participation in public life. When native citizens see immigrants not just as economic actors but as future neighbors who are learning the language, understanding the political system, and engaging with the broader culture, their resistance tends to soften. Rather than viewing immigration purely through the lens of market efficiency or humanitarian obligation, reframing it as a two-way social contract could create space for policies that are both more generous and more politically sustainable.

Plenty of neolibs don’t see a problem with asylum seekers that pass through safe countries in pursuit of the USA for economic reasons… that’s just out of step with voters, but many here won’t budge on that.

Herecomesthewooooo

A fundamental issue is that large fractions of the population seem to believe that legal immigration is both easier and more common than it really is.

Matar_Kubileya

Speaking as a British POC, you can't in Europe. Immigration now is heavily intertwined with race/ethnicity. People dont want secure borders. They want every single non white re-immigrated and kicked out. I have lived in the UK since I was 3 years old, and this is the first time where I feel so uncomfortable. Many people who I knew before who weren't political are now hardcore Reform fanboys and are not shy of saying the quiet part out loud.

frankiewalsh44

The bad immigrants, people who can't pass a background check, will be immediately deported.  The good immigrants, the ones who can pass a background check, are on a fast track to contributing to this country they love so much.

federalist66

Starts and ends with having a secure border at a minimum, border enforcement should be uncontroversial

Temporary-Health9520

Make the border secure. Take action to dramatically increase border security, end asylum spamming, do stuff like universal e-verify to ensure that anyone who overstays will get caught, and so on

Shift the argument to be "not a single person should get into the country without our permission". Make it so that people can genuinely feel safe that the border is secure

And then it becomes, I'd imagine, much easier to argue "not a single person should get into the country without our permission. We should also give permission for many more people to enter the country, for economic purposes, if we look at basic economic consensus"

The optics of stuff like illegal immigration and asylum spamming is just very bad, and if we can remove that stuff from the argument, the optics of "immigration", and arguments primarily focused on increasing legal immigration, can be easier to make, and the folks who then turn around and make it clear they weren't really just opposed to *illegal* immigration could face more backlash

Okbuddyliberals

&gt; strictly barring immigrants from welfare safety nets until they get a permanent residence permit

The status quo is that immigrants *are* strictly barred from federal welfare safety nets in most cases except asylum, and it takes 5 years of being a permanent resident to qualify for federal welfare programs. Some states might have different rules, but in those cases the funds come from the states, not the federal government. But improving communication on this point couldn’t hurt.

klarno

As a Canadian, I think [this article](https://induecourse.utoronto.ca/canadian-exceptionalism/) makes a good case for what has worked for us historically (Keep in mind, this article was written eight years ago, _before_ Trudeau and the provinces fucked the dog with some ill-advised reforms post-Covid).

Long story short: keep illegal immigration low, prioritize high-skilled migration first (people who are most likely to be economically productive, easily integrated, and visible in prominent civic positions), encourage long-term permanent immigration over short-term migration, make your pool of immigrants diverse so that no one group in particular stands out like a sore thumb, and make the expectations of what constitutes “integration” explicit as a policy goal (language acquisition? Low crime? Economic indicators? All of the above?). 

Bonus points if you have an electoral system that rewards moderate big-tent parties and keeps racist, fringe, factionalist parties out of power and influence. And for the love of God, _build enough housing and infrastructure_ to keep up with population growth if you want to avoid massive backlash.

The bad news is that there is always going to be a small but significant percentage of the population who care more about in-group identity purity than any real or perceived economic and rational arguments. There is no reasoning with those people, you just need to control them and limit the damage they can do to discourse and public policy.

No-Section-1092

Stop being idiots and digging your heads in the sand. If housing is high and people can't get doctors invest into programs to counter these problems instead of ignoring them (canada). Literally all of these anti immigration movements/populists wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for governments doing nothing but fuel the fire with stupid policy.

TwoThis11

More rhetoric against illegal immigration, tighter border controls, a rethink of asylum, vocally championing assimilation, not just coexistence, bringing in richer, more attractive immigrants from countries more likely to assimilate quickly. Comms need to emphasise the contributions of migrants and also their lack of eligibility for welfare programs. Build a lot more housing.

You need people that unironically strengthen both the vibes and the economy, that normies are more likely to care about and get along with. 

I'm not advocating for all that, but if you want to make it more popular while having high levels of it, you need to make trade-offs.

Dense_Delay_4958

1. Immigrants should not qualify for most benefits until a relatively long amount of years of tax contributions.
2. Make income taxes on them higher than citizens.


A system based on cumulative tax contributions to qualify for citizenship could be the path. They should have unlimited time to get to that amount in my opinion, and previous contributions should never expire in that count.




I don't like this system but it's a quick way to provide statistics to disprove any attempt at disqualifying their contributions. This will not convince everyone obviously. Some people will never be convinced.

Magikarp-Army

Fickle_Rain7468

Immigration needs to be orderly and controlled first and foremost. Images of boat refugees or 'caravans' crossing a land border in an irregular way are clearly politically untenable.

Then you need to make it obvious to a large majority of voters that the immigrants who do come to the country will make the country better.

A somewhat strict points-based system combined with a set of temporary work visas ranging from seasonal agricultural work to temporary high skilled work would probably work. 

In addition you could offer a quota'd humanitarian visa program. Majorities of people are still willing to help people fleeing war and prosecution. 

Underpinning all of this should be a system of law enforcement where people who break the rules are punished and/or deported in a reliable way. 

Whether that still meets your definition of open is up to debate. At this point I personally don't see a path for a more generous system.

ManyKey9093

I think the immigration would be more easily accepted if the native population was increasing faster than the rate of foreigners coming in.

Therefore migration is a luxury to have when you have a growing population, not a cure to a shrinking one.

All_The_Clovers

As crass it is, the less inclusive your immigration scheme is, the higher the migration rates that the native population will tolerate. For example, immigration in Switzerland is very high but the far-right is not much stronger than in the rest of Europe because the vast majority of immigrants are Europeans.  


But if you want a compromise between raw numbers and inclusivity, as you should, I can think of five propositions outside of welfare restrictions for recent immigrants (something that is often already enforced for economic immigrants). From the least to most illiberal: 


First, set a cap and set it as a percentage of the population rather than an absolute number. 100'000 persons feels like a lot of people, 0.1% of the population feels very low even as the latter is almost 4 times larger in the US case. Preferably, if possible, this number should be voted on by referendum and updated semi-regularly (once a decade or so). This would give a feeling of control from the population, which is symbolically extremely important. 


Second, try to promote diversity in the pool of immigrants. People really don't like when all the migrants come from the same place. Whether it is better managed by country-specific quotas or by regulating movement within the country is up for debate. 


Third, provide specific carveouts for women economic migrants, at the expense of men. This one would work especially well for Europe, I feel. A large selling point for local far-right parties is the image of an invasion by young men from the Middle East. Women, by comparison, are absent from anti-immigration discourse because people are simply a lot less scared by them. Discrimination statistics back this, with foreign-born women being significantly less discriminated in hiring than men of the same background.


Fourth, severely curtail asylum requests. I really hate to list this one because this serves an unambiguously noble purpose... But it's undeniable that the system has gotten overburdened as poor countries got richer, resulting in a huge backlog of cases, who end-up disappearing from the radars. Again, the feeling of control is immensely important... 


Fifth and certainly the most illiberal (also probably unconstitutional): Foreign citizens convicted of criminal offenses or multiple misdemeanors should be forced to go back, and detained until they decided to leave if they don't comply. Nothing turns people against immigration faster than some immigrants committing crimes or being a nuisance, and once they get angry you'll never convince them with crime statistics. However, the only actual solutions (either that, or a modern version of gunboat diplomacy) are profoundly questionable from a liberal standpoint. 


That being said, if you do these things well,  I think a country could sustain Western European (not UK) migration rates without significant political backlash, provided support for the far-right is lulling a bit. Possibly more if Western countries get their shit together on housing and welfare.

Sernk

An awful a lot of it comes down to an ingrained fear of "The Other", which is so easy to stoke for political advantage. So looking at it from a rational perspective can turn into whack-a-mole. You have to figure out how to deal with people who can hold "they're lazy!" and "they're stealing our jobs!" in their head at the same time.

I think one huge mistake we've made is moving away from the "we're basically all the same!" and "we should all strive to be be colorblind!" messaging around racism in general. I understand the flaws of that approach, but encouraging high-advantage people to identify with their ethnic in-group has just led to a revival of blood-and-soil thinking. 

On another forum, members of a subgroup (non-ethnic; trying to be vague here because the specifics aren't really relevant but might be distracting) would get irate about having to constantly have "101-level" conversations about their group every time the topic came up. But most people aren't going to get past a 101-level thinking about anything that doesn't affect them directly. We need to learn to live in the "101" and just keep reinforcing that stuff gently and positively and unthreateningly.

gringledoom

Immigration is not the real issue. Immigrants are just convenient scapegoats for the actual issues, usually economical. So changing things about immigration won't actually change how immigration is perceived.

svick

I reckon it would help to make it more visibly orderly and efficient, and the mitigate demand impacts. So streamline the process, polish state capacity (immigration courts, the bureaucratic process of processing applications), and keep everything above the table. Also build housing. Make sure damn nobody is kept without a work permit due to process, and so dependent on state largess 

Provide an acceptable dial to adjust on numbers as needed. Sometimes a government will come in thats less friendly to immigration, better for them to just turn the designated dial down than to go psycho ape shit tearing the wires out of the wall

WifeGuy-Menelaus

It’s not an issue of reforms being unpopular but republicans realizing they get better electoral traction out of keeping things opaque and chaotic than actually fixing the issue. 

It’s why Donald Trump literally said “don’t pass this bill” when he was running for president last year and now is firing immigration judges. It’s also why people by and large don’t actually like what he’s doing (even though he’s doing what he promised).

madmoneymcgee

&gt;My first thought is that strictly barring immigrants from welfare safety nets until they get a permanent residence permit, taxing immigrants at a higher rate, and requiring a fee to immigrate would give liberals enough wiggle room to lower immigration barriers. In essence, if native citizens a) feel that immigrants aren’t dependent on the state

That's not a real concern that anti-immigration voters have. They still think immigrants are receiving welfare even when they are not, or that they are voting. Most people have no idea how their own immigration system works, in any country. And they won't learn because that's not their real concern.

The reason why immigration is unpopular is because things are too expensive and inequality is high, so opportunistic politicians blame immigrants, and people believe in it. When people are angry, all they need is a target and simple answers, and it doesn't need to make sense. They are just looking for an outlet for their frustration. And an easy target who can't defend themselves is usually the main target.

Politicians used to blame black people or jews when the economy was bad. During jim crow, whenever the economy took a downturn in the south, linchings increased. Today that kind of explicitly racist rethoric is unacceptable, so politicians and right-wing media just changed the target to immigrants. Because "immigrant is not a race" and blaming immigrants is versatile enough to fit in any country, just like fascism is versatile enough to fit in any country.

If you want to make people care less about immigrants in a negative way, improve their economic conditions. Make things more affordable, especially necessities like housing, healthcare, groceries and energy, and decrease inequality so people feel like they have a chance to climb up the ladder. That way they will be comfortable and won't feel the need to blame other groups.

theosamabahama

one proposal I hadn't heard much talk of is allocating immigrants to states [or other sub divisions for non americans] 


this would both help politically but also practically help us grow other parts of the nation 


of course for humanitarian reasons family migrants excluded. 


Another thing is that in order to fix immigration you need a congressional bill.  this makes it so that any large momentum on the issue ends in   blue balls for Americans 


I purpose therfore a permanent process or office for undocumented immigrants to be legalized.  no "if you were here before September 2002" or that stuff .in perpuitity


of course a basic amount of time spent  here but other then  that  "no crime since alright do this paperwork pay this fee any childern? ok your legal now"  .




That will essentially solve the issue forever since congress won't need to keep redoing amnesty every 30 years 


edit left a lonely m

BATIRONSHARK

Trump is doing the work for them. 

In Nov. 2024 there was absolutely no room for any pro-immigrant sentiment. And this is a very new thing. For decades, most Americans wanted more immigration. More legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

That flipped near the end of Biden’s term. For the first time in a long time, most Americans wanted less legal immigration. The American people decided that immigrants were the source of many of our nation’s problems and elected a child rapist who was pledging mass deportations, the largest deportation operation in US history. Anything to get the illegals out.

So now they are seeing what happens when they give the anti-immigrant right all the power they need to do exactly what they want on immigration. They are deporting many illegal immigrants. But Americans seem to have suddenly realized, on both sides of the aisle, that they didn’t want to deport illegal immigrants with jobs. Just the unemployed criminals. Well, too late now.

All illegal immigrants are out of here. Trump has said exceptions will be made for working immigrants but none of those exceptions have materialized. If you’re here illegally, you’re out.

And the American right was never going to just stop there. They are trying to change the definition of US citizenship and revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans. They are revoking green cards and work permits from legal immigrants and deporting them. They are deporting asylum seekers with legal status. They are putting entire families in handcuffs and chains.

They are sending immigrants with no criminal record to serve life prison sentences in foreign countries with no trial, where they are tortured and abused. 

And the American people are just starting to think “No we didn’t mean like that!”

Republicans couod have easily won big on this issue. They had the public’s support. They coupd have just deported illegal immigrants and made under the table deals with employers of illegal immigrants promising not to deport their workers that no one would have ever known about. They coupd have done the deportations legally. Left the people who immigrated legally alone. And they would have earned a lot of political capital.

But the unfortunate truth is that they’re racists. And they want to hurt people of certain races. So the brutal Trump-branded mass deportations will continue until voters do something about it.

Y0___0Y

Messaging is huge. Some simple, obvious bills that do things that may already be common practice might convince a lot of people of reality.

MalekithofAngmar

I don’t think Democrats can. Because at this point, what is needed is basically a paradigm shift in how the country thinks about this issue and no party is capable of accomplishing that.

What they can and should do is start talking more hawkishly about the border and advocate for reform of asylum rules and a bigger budget for immigration courts and enforcement at the border. Establish that cred first and THEN talk about the importance of immigration for our economy and the fact that it is a net benefit to have hard working people that choose to come here and want to be here integrated into our society. We need reasonable ways for people to immigrate in a controlled way that is fair.

But that last part seems very far off to me now.

KopOut

TheGreatSoup

A few thoughts in no particular relation to each other:

* As always, education, education, education. If people knew about the economic benefits, it might be different.
* The backlash consists of two parts: one economic and one cultural or demographic. The economic should be possible to alleviate, but you will still run into the other stuff. While removing one argument would weaken it, I'm unconvinced it is enough to avoid a long-term backlash.
* I'm not totally sure if you mean that even citizens that are immigrants should be taxed at a higher rate, but that would a amount to a 2-tiered citizenship. That seems like a growing source of resentment.
* Barring immigrants from all safety nets would mean desperation and poverty, and thus, crime. Which then could be blamed on "foreign cultures". The desperation would also likely create a class (for lack of a better word) of people willing to work for significantly lower wages. That would also fuel resentment.
* Personally, I'd also consider a country that invites people here just to look away if they ever get sick or lose their job - no healthcare, no unemployment benefits - to not be the kind of country I want.
* You got to have some shared identity, I think. Here the US is much better than us in Europe, since our countries are shaped by 19th century nationalism in many cases. The "nation of immigrants" thing is probably one of the main reasons why Trump is losing on immigration while the Europeans who crack down on immigration all benefit politically from it. Even in the supposedly progressive or liberal parts of Europe.
* A slightly unserious proposal: have them join the native population for conscription. That can bind people together, and it gives you free points on patriotism. Or if conscription is politically impossible as in the US, then maybe some other kind of service. The old George Romney-HW Bush ideas. In general I'm a bit mixed on that, but strengthening civic engagement is probably effective in this case. 
* As a general point: better to have people show their commitment than to make them second class citizens.

Significant_Arm4246

(Momentarily stop dusting my Gundam collection)

Ban or neuter rightwing media.

I worked for a moderate Republican member during the Gang of 8 era. Everyone was stunned at how chill the base was during its passage in the Senate. I vividly recall Jeff Sessions and Laura Ingrahm pouting on her show, saying “why isn’t the base angrier about this?”

And it was because Fox toned its coverage way down compared to the 2006 CIR bill. All the talk radio screeched about it. But Fox’s heavy hitters tepidly supported or opposed it.

This was also a time when boomers weren’t on Facebook yet, so they weren’t getting brain damaged by Breitbart content.

I think the average American and a good chunk of Republicans have a mildly negative disposition towards immigration, but they can be persuaded to go along with meaningful reform. But not if their information sources are bombarding them with footage of narcos or migrants crawling through the fence.

Plane_Arachnid9178

I agree with your high ranking of immigration as an issue. I rank, in no particular order, my top four issues as abortion, housing, LGBT rights, and immigration. My commentary here is also pretty US specific. 

Some anti immigration animus is driven by people who aren't around immigrants (also see declines in homophobia following knowing out queer people, harder to hate what you know, though certainly still quite possible). Urbanization trends would be faster if cities were affordable and thus more people would be around immigrants. It's also worth pointing out that immigration actually does make housing more expensive if supply is artificially constrained from keeping up with demand, though I'm preaching to a neolib choir here. 

Some of the outrage against immigrants in the US is explicitly caused by our shit immigration policy. Take the NYC hotels and debit cards for food, for instance, none of the people getting those could work legally. If they could, then that particular problem is solved. Same with illegal immigrants and having to commit some kind of fraud to work, either under the table or using a stolen SSN. Agricultural visas could be made actually viable with some bureaucratic changes; I don't care about legal/illegal, but a lot of people seem to. 

Immigration of all kinds is good and I'd like to fully open borders, but that's not to say that short of that I won't favor policies that increase immigration in specific areas even if it's not as broad as I'd like. In this vein, even Trump has occasionally discussed proposals like stapling green cards to college diplomas earned in the US, and anecdotally I've been able to talk immigration skeptics I know into this by pointing out that they'd have had to spend time in the US to get it and that so many people come to some of the best universities in the world then have to leave. 

I don't know what the solution here is, but it is a fair criticism of the H1B visa program that it ties someone to a specific employer. Maybe make a visa that just requires you to maintain employment, with a maximum break in between? But how to initiate that? I'm sure this is something others have thought more about than I have.

No_March_5371

It can be quite difficult for companies to sponsor immigration visas and guide employees through the green card process. For large companies this isn't an issue, because they have full offices of experts guiding the process. For high-paid employees it's not really an issue--the cost is a small percentage of their worth anyway. But for smaller companies and/or lower wage professions, it can be a deterrent

I think doing away with some of the administrivia and restrictions would get more sectors hiring immigrants, especially smaller-to-mid-sized companies and for lower-wage positions. It'd be cool to see more lower-wage immigrants come to the country with a job already and with help navigating the immigration process to become a permanent resident.

So more open immigration spread across more sectors and wage levels.

Edit to add I really do think border control is essential to getting public buy-in to increase immigration. I also think dealing with homelessness and encampments is essential. It's not actually related to the immigration problem IMO, but the public fears the formation of migrant camps, and homeless encampments feed that fear.

hypsignathus

[deleted]

I think for the median voter it's the economic concerns that they're worried about. I don't see so much "the immigrants are all on welfare" so much as "they'll take our jobs". And, to be honest, I don't think it's that difficult to take the wind out of that sail. Establish an independent agency (cf. Fed) tasked with the role of determining which industries, if any, have been negatively impacted by immigration (or free trade) and by how much, and then making disbursements such that whatever policy we're talking about is actually a Pareto improvement (because Kaldor-Hicks efficiency is a scam lmao). I'm kind of mixing up prediction of proposed policies and implementation, but this is a Reddit comment so whatever.

If no one _does_ suffer any negative effects, then this is just a way to placate critics at the cost of a few dozen or hundred economics PhDs' salaries. If they do, well, we should be paying off the losers anyway, so it serves a valuable purpose in making that easier and/or automatic.

And, preference should be subsidy to wages &gt; cash benefit (if you've lost your job) &gt; in-kind benefit. We've leaned too heavily on in-kind benefits, and they aren't particularly useful. If we're talking about like a 30-y.o. who's worked construction for 5-10 years, he probably can and should retrain -- but if bro's like 55, just give him cash ffs.

Also, fix housing. I've heard a lot of "foreigners are buying properties and leaving them vacant", though it's worse in Canada from what I know.

TrekkiMonstr

I think that they should figure out why people are upset about it. I agree with other comments, but I feel like it's also how things are being handled at local levels with other things like crime, economy, etc and the mass immigration that happened between 2020 to 2024 and even Trumps prior bad border policy is what exasperated the situation.

seattleseahawks2014

I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is that the narrative of immigration as being zero-sum, as in immigrants take up jobs, housing etc. must be fought against. I don't mean just in terms of narrative but also through alleviating existing, unrelated harms. People blame immigrants for the housing crisis so best address the housing crisis. People blame immigrants for crime, address crime and public safety. None of these things are becasue of immigrants yet people assume they are so make sure there is nothing to assume period

ColdArson

Nothing. No one will compromise.

Example... Suggest we build a big, beautiful wall, take our foot off the gas on legal immigration, and promise to deport the undocumented who've legit committed crimes. In exchange we stop the inhumane brown roundup to save the economy and give the law abiding undocumented immediate citizenship.

No one would agree to that, but everyone gets what they want.

TheThirteenthCylon

This is just a throw in the dark here, but we really need to market the values of America as a country of immigrants and to share more stories about successful immigrants contributing greatly to the prosperity of the community. Instead of always talking about the bad things immigrants do, how about doing that alongside sharing positive immigrant stories. 

People in the United States really need to find more ways of being proud of their country and what they accomplished. More positive messaging and framing of events really change how people see the world.

RaeReiWay

I think movies and music.  Remember when in the late 90’s early 2000’s we had a wave of popular Mexican singers and movie stars?  That is what we need more than clever policy. We need to win back the hearts and minds of the general populace.

sulris

StreamWave190

We should transform EB-3 and EB-5 into open work visas, but with a crucial condition: You can only stay with a minimum salary significantly above the median wage. Otherwise, you can't stay (and enforce it).  
  
This policy would discourage immigration that could depress wages for America's lowest-paid workers, while still welcoming individuals whose skills (and thus earning potential) are in high demand.

argjwel

I think the closest thing to a realistic answer is to implement a policy which is much better from an economic perspective (hopefully via legislation), and then also use harsh immigration rhetoric without substantive changes to enforcement (executive actions). That's it. Do the right thing as well as practically possible, and then when a reporter comes out talking about how some random immigrant was mistreated, you have the President stare them dead in the eye and say "no one is above the law, they'll go through the legal process just like anyone else."

Zenkin

A) don’t do what Biden did. That really soured Americans’ opinions on immigration. Next time a democratic president is in office, they shouldn’t allow a whole lot of illegal immigration

B) completely agree with you on barring immigrants of welfare until they get permanent residence

C) Draw attention to the benefits of legal immigration. Talk about how it’s a win-win for everyone. Dispel the myth of the labor lump fallacy.

D) Draw attention to the horrors and disadvantages of Trumps strong anti-immigration policies. And actually the public opinion on immigration is turning more in favor of immigration since Trump took office.

Crash_Mclars1

Deport the people who are anti-immigration, but invite them to immigrate back into the country and live happily ever after as naturalized citizens 😎

Cultural_Ebb4794

Promotion of civic nationalism over blood-and-soil nativism and the stateless cosmopolitan ideology.

TrixoftheTrade

Immigration is one of the simplest problems to solve. Everyone agrees on the correct solution. And every country except the U.S. has solved the issue. 

Secure the border, reform asylum, allow enough legal immigrants in to fit the labor market, get rid of illegal immigrants (either by amnesty or deporting them all). 

The hard part is mass amnesty causes border insecurity and mass deportation causes labor shortage. So you have to balance mass amnesty and mass deportation. Basically exactly what Obama did but for longer and probably more aggressively. 

Trump will probably mass amnesty farm workers at some point and call them little brown TRUMPers or something stupid like that

NearlyPerfect

Immigration is an issue in a larger context. When times are good, it’s easy to have a “sharing is caring” attitude. But we’re in a time of deleveraging. We have too much debt and inequality that people are self-focused giving rise to the populist left and right. 

The thing to do, in my humble opinion, is to focus on Ray Dalio’s 333 plan - aim for the budget deficit to be 3% of GDP (currently around 6-7%) by increasing revenue from taxes about 3% and reducing spending by 3%. Everyone gives to get. 

Once we’re more stable, yes I think normie moderate R’s will be open to immigration as long as we have a strong border. 

Unfortunately, what’s more likely to happen is we keep printing money, asset prices rise, inequality rises, and some kind of revolution occurs. 

THEN under the new order prosperity comes and people are open to immigration again.

Earthy-moon

I think a conversation around “what is an illegal immigrant” is critical to making progress on this problem.

We need to have a definition we agree to. If you come from Haiti, file for amnesty, get accepted and have an up coming hearing you are not here illegally.

If that same person murders someone they should be deported. But that person is not “an illegal”, they are a criminal non-citizen.

People who sneak in, pass through the border undetected, and stay here, they are here illegally. Its unclear to me if these people are a true problem or not.

See how the definitions matter?

Potential_Release478

So is your conclusion that the immigration law shouldn't be enforced because it's too expensive?

I'm not being glib, I'm genuinely asking because you just stated a bunch of facts but no conclusion in your post.

The one thing I will say here is I definitely don't like seeing veterans being deported.  If they served our country there should be considerations around those crimes.  If they served their time and changed for the better we should evaluate if this is really appropriate. I can't get behind treating our veterans like trash.  

arilupe

All of that is fine and well….but Trump ran on that platform and was elected.  He’s doing what people voted for.  You might not like it, but people like politicians that deliver on promises they made.

LeftHandedFlipFlop

Meh, I'm not buying it. Obama removed far more people and almost no one batted an eye, and it was done without breaching charges, masked extremists, or third country deportations. By your logic, prosecuting any number of crimes would be unethical. Is it moral for someone to steal your wallet because they're hungry?

btribble

I'm more a fan of Romney-style self-deportation. Make working as a non-citizen not on a visa that allows it impossible. Strictly require e-verify, perform random audits, and increase tracking of those here on visas to reduce overstays. Frankly this would be a good application of so-called AI: predict who is most likely to overstay based on historic data, and deny above a certain risk threshold, unless asylum is being granted, or a bail of sorts is posted, something like that. By not enforcing our own laws, we are collectively complicit in the status quo; those who took advantage of American hesitancy about enforcing immigration law have only cooperated in the f---ed up situation that we created. The Gestapo/KGB style of ICE raids as carried out lately with masks and unmarked vehicles and lying to the public about court appointments and brutal incarceration without trial... way too fascist/communist for my taste, frankly it's a disgrace to how the people and the government are supposed to relate in a republic.  But the situation of a permanent non-citizen underclass in such numbers in the country is not good and should be tackled smartly. Unfortunately, probably because they are of the socioeconomic class that benefits most from keeping wages down, the political class pre-Trump did not take illegal immigration seriously enough, and it was left to a destructive demagogue to carry the torch, burning much of the homestead down in the process.

PXaZ

Most of your arguments could be solved by going hard after anyone who employs illegal labor.

Fateor42

It’s obvious that immigration law serves no worthwhile purpose. Persecution is the point.

Kronzypantz

The better bet is to tightly secure the southern boarder and naturalise any undocumented immigrant. So basically don’t deport illegals immigrants that are there now; but prevent more from coming in. 

I would also address the political climates of Mexico which prompt Mexicans to cross the boarder illegally. The problem is that this would mean America being involved in other people’s business

PuzzleheadedThroat84

Its completely ethical for people who brike the law to face the consequences. Like any law breaking, its common for family members to face hardships because of this. Thats on the person who broke the law, not those enforcing it. Youre pretty honest about wanting open borders, and your honesty is appreciate, but your position is extremely unpopular and radical. US citizens face consequences like this all the time,no one cries for them. Theres no reason to give some special exemption to people here illegally

abqguardian

There is one simple flaw in this argument: your version of ethics is not universal.  To many people what Trump is doing right now is indeed ethical.

AwardImmediate720

1. They're here illegally.  People who sell drugs are "bread winners" for their families as well.  Should we go soft on them too?
2. Relying on them there doesn't make it right.  I'm sure that the textile industry of the 1800's relied on cheap labor too.  That didn't make it right.
3. So you'd rather have them in substandard facilities that are not capable of housing all of those people?  I'd say the creation of facilities like this is the polar opposite of "cruel."
4. That sounds like a pretty massive dog whistle to me.  Do you have any proof that this is a problem?
5. Due process didn't seem to matter during the Obama administration.  Like what, half of his deportations or so in 2009 were criminals.  Granted, that grew as the years went on, but straight deportations have been a common practice for years.  Wanna save money and time?  That's a great way to do it: if you don't belong here you can GTFO.
6. There has been obvious resistance to this but the Trump administration has found ways to handle it for the most part.  Frankly, these are citizens of those countries.  It shouldn't be that difficult to get them home.  Maybe, oh I dont know, an international organization could step in to broker the return of people to their home soil.

&gt;This costs thousands of dollars per person and keep in mind they can come back illegally again

So basically, "They break the law repeatedly, so we should solve them breaking the law by legalizing what they're doing" is your solution?

TL;DR - Stick to cats.

AlpineSK

Topical and easy to say init. If it gets them votes what do they care?

Ath-e-ist

Of course not. That would remove their biggest vote winner. They’ll pretend to enact unworkable plans and blame everyone else (France, courts, RNLI, Coastguard etc etc) for them not working.

Drammeister

Because they're the same people that voted Brexit... they either don't care about it enough to actually look into the detail, or they're too stupid to realise their being conned. Or both.

Fragrant_Account7367

Well they championed Brexit that by every measure made immigration much worse. We used to have a perfectly working deal in the EU to stop boat crossings, we used to actually police our borders and we had all the workforce we needed from rich European countries. Brexit ended all that. Now we have had to relax immigration from the rest of the world to fill our jobs. Bravo Farage, everything he said Brexit would solve (even when there wasn’t a problem) it made much worse. Don’t know how anything works? Don’t learn from experience? Don’t like people who weren’t born in your town? Don’t check anything you’re told? Nigel has a party for you…

mccancelculture

Of course they won't . If they did one trick pony Nigel wouldn't know what to talk about .

RevolutionaryBell364

I actually think they could, especially if they lead a Government that comes out of the ECHR.  This, however, would be a nightmarish scenario which would lead to terrible acts of cruelty and would stain the country for decades to come.  If Reform win in 2029 we are looking at some very dark days ahead.

JeffLynnesBeard

Under the Dublin convention we could send illegal immigrants back to the first EU country they set foot in, without having to process them independently. After Farage's Brexit we couldn't.

Also after we left, it's easier for France to just look the other way with illegal immigrants wanting to leave the northern French boarders and just let them come over to the UK and we have to keep them in expensive hotels. Literally the opposite to what most vote leave voters and Reform voters wanted, but, seeing as half of us realised this, I bet Farage was also aware.

Just to add, Farage now wants us to leave the Europe court of human rights. Let's not kid ourselves, this is nothing to do with immigration, this is a money grab and a way to remove our workers protections and turn us into cheap labour for the wealthy.

mish_mash_mosh_

Nigel Farage has built his entire career on things that can't be achieved, so nobody serious campaigns on them. Giving him a tap-in with mindless idiots. Unfortunately, there are far too many of those in the general population. Completely stopping illegal migration is simply not realistic

RemoteCoach3910

Could just physically stop them in the channel.


Fail to believe it's that hard

afcvcc86

Not to mention he's been caught out in many an interview and has had to clarify all his intentions are just wishes, not plans. Somehow, the Reform voters miss that bit.

Intrepid-Patient574

When has anyone said what they're going to do and got in and actually done it?

HobNob_Pack

It’s true that political leaders often use immigration as a talking point without delivering real solutions. Farage and others have made plenty of promises, but the reality is much more complex — border control isn’t about tough slogans, it’s about fair, effective policies and international cooperation.

If anything, focusing only on “stopping illegal immigrants” distracts from the bigger picture: why people feel forced to leave their homes, how the system processes asylum claims, and what support is available once they arrive. The solution needs to be compassionate and practical, not just fear-mongering.

Socialistinoneroom

Nope. They are toothless. They will diminish our rights to try to circumvent international law. 

We will still have refugees arriving at our shores. 

And we will be poorer for their interventions

Own-Nefariousness-79

NatHammond1

It baffles me why anyone would believe a word Farage says. The man is a slippery liar who never has any sort of plan and never, ever, takes any accountability.

Hot_Fly_8684

I have no idea! Reform is backed by wealthy millionaires. These people own companies that have hugely profited from mass immigration, allowing them to pay poverty wages. Do you seriously think that these people want to stop mass immigration?

Think about it!

StiffAssedBrit

The most damaging line peddled by Farage is ‘they’re all the same’.  They lie, they do u turns, they don’t deliver. Somebody please tell me why Reform are different? What proof does anyone have that Farage will be any different?

Peachy-SheRa

These are the same people who voted Boris Johnson and then moaned when he let in something daft like 1 million people. Farage will do exactly the same. Because his billionaire mates want cheap workers.

Then he will blame the EU, the LGBT community, immigrants or women, and Gary down the pub drowning his life away on his 14th pint of Ruddles will lap it up.

ChittyShrimp

The impression these people seem to have is that the main parties either can't or won't. It's not generally a discussion on actual policy specifics. They also enjoy conflating asylum with illegal immigration, something other parties have aided them in doing by providing no route to claim asylum other than by somehow getting here.

Caacrinolass

This is a very good question, which an honest media should be using to hold Reform to account. When either Labour or the Conservatives claim whatever their plan de-jour to fix the economy is they [rightfully] face a lot of scrutiny over the logistics of how they hope to achieve it. Yet the idea that Reform can or will break from political tradition and restrict immigration seems to just have been accepted on blind faith.

Sonchay

Totally agree. Farage has form for constant lies and failed promises. No one wants to listen. And you've had STARMER.

Few-Wolf-432

People voted for Brexit because they thought it would mean we’d protect our borders better, but it made it worse 🤣🤣🤣. The quiet majority know nothing about the real reasons for the rise of reform; it’s like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

JAD4995

Wasn’t Brexit supposed to get control of our borders or have we already forgotten that trope?

crosstherubicon

Yeah they won't. Like the Tories, they have nothing else they can campaign on, so they won't stop it.

Chuck_The_Lad

It’s easy to say but it’s very different to actually doing it. Bunch of idiots

GT_Pork

At the last election they had no policies for tackling illegal immigration. They just complained about it.

Shawn_The_Sheep777

Conservatives and Labour have proven they aren't going to do anything about it.   
Reform most likely wont either but when everyone else has already proven themselves to be liars about it people feel like they have no other option.

malovus

Nobody else is going to and that's what the country wants, so you'll soon see.

Probably the same reason that they thought that Keir was gonna “smash the gangs”.

For some reason people still believe politicians

LANdShark31

Because they also believed Brexit would stop immigration, but have now forgot that it hasn't.

Eric_Olthwaite_

They won't stop them at all. They'll just lie about the figures, and say thay any official fact checking is a woke agenda.


They'll get elected on the same mandate that elected Trump, which is the same mandate that elected Adolf.

TheViscountRang

sbaldrick33

People believe it because people are stupid. 

People don’t want leaders who actually know what they’re doing they want leaders who say what they want to hear and let them live in their own little world in which they can blame their problems on other people. 

It’s the age old method of conservatives getting into power

Purple_Furry_Carpet

Because it's one of their stated policies. People have tried the uniparty and it didn't work. Now they will move to Reform. If Reform doesn't work, they will move further to the right, either to a new right wing party (Lowe) or to civil unrest.

dick-dock80

He won’t, the same way he won’t implement “hard Brexit”.

Hes a fucking idiot

Chris80L1

Reform don't want to get into power, just like UKIP didn't actually want Brexit.

When you base your entire political identity around one single policy or issue you eventually reach a dead end. However, if you never get into power or achieve your supposed goal you can continue to lobby for it, tell people all the things you would do and blame everyone around you for what your supporters see as being the fundamental issues. It's a juggling act between having enough support to be seen as influential while not having enough support to be in a position where you actually have to do something.

If Reform gets in they're faced with three scenarios as far as I can see:

A) They do actually 'stop the boats' and cull immigration into the country and then get exposed for not having any policies or ideologies beyond that and their time in power fizzles out due to incompetence and a lack of experience.

B) They partially do what they've set out to do, slow down the flow of immigration, deport some people but find whatever they do is never enough and a large portion of their supporters won't be happy until there's only white faces in the UK.

C) They realise that what they want to do is an impossible task, detrimental to the country as a whole and fail to do anything more significant than any previous governments making them look like the frauds they are, with the end result being similar to scenario A due to the fact that they're not bringing anything else to the table.

bloodgutsandpunkrock

Why did people think UKIP would actually stop immigrants?

YouCantArgueWithThis

Once Farage wins Putin won't need to use his gangsters to get boat pple into UK. Prices for immigrants to get across have fallen significantly and it is the russian state that is paying the difference.

Least-Wonder-7049

This idea that they all lie is not true and it’s corrosive. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage lie repeatedly but face no consequences because so many voters believe that all politicians lie. The same in the US.

Fiftyandcurious

Conservatives and Labour have a 100% failure rate, Reform have not tried yet, so they have not failed yet, while their success rate is 0% their failure rate is also 0%.

A 0/0 score is better than a 0/-100 score.

People need some form of hope to cling onto.

Stabwank

Because they're told they will and lack critical thinking skills. They're manipulated by AI or other malicious media.

They're old and not set up for this digital age of lying and spinning truths. They're not too bright, to be polite, and will fall for this.

Nigel farage is a cunt, but he is also a very clever orater telling half truths and spinning lies very quickly and flawlessly.

Mainstream media owned by Rupert Murdoch support cronyism, hate and division to make the rich richer. Reform are that.

Exerionn123

The pressure isn't on what we think Reform will do but rather on what we know the Labour and Conservative governments haven't done.

As far as much of the electorate are concerned (myself included) Reform can hardly be any worse. Yet there still a chance that they could be better.

MurkyFogsFutureLogs

I’m hoping the gains made in local elections show that Reform in reality couldn’t organise a pissup in a brewery, and actually hurt their chances in the next GE.

In reality though, unless there’s a Tony Blair or BoJo 2.0 big personality waiting in the wings who publicly agrees with whichever way the wind blows, I the Farage will get in. Most people aren’t remotely interested in politics and just vote for the leader who smiles a lot, gets the most air time, and says a few things they agree with.

reddazsg

Proposed U.S. legislation aims to reform immigration processes, addressing pathways to legal residency for undocumented immigrants.

US Immigration Reform

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want