[hellojesus]

This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens: people we openly rely on for labor but that have no recourse if they're exploited and no regulatory protections such as minimum wage (even though I argue against min wage, if we're going to have it, have it!).

My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.

But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.

[wombatpm]

Are you going to allow ER’s to refuse patients and let people die on the street? What if the Patient is unconscious with no identification but looks Hispanic? Can they be turned away?

Stripping away all wefare because of immigration is a bad bad bad idea.

[Mezzie]

> But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.

What about long term immigrants who end up disabled through no fault of their own? Or who get cancer? Or who end up having a child (who is an American citizen) and that child is special needs and the immigrant can't manage a full time job and care for their child? If they get pregnant and end up on bed rest or with a traumatic birth that takes them out of the workforce for a period of time?

There are ways to end up needing to rely on welfare that aren't due to laziness or a desire for handouts.

If the answer is 'kick them out', I'd be worried about what we're teaching our American kids watching. There are two lessons they could pick up, and neither is good for their moral development or sense of self. The first is that anyone who lacks the ability to work has no value, and that will engender greater alienation and isolation as they place all of their self-worth on their ability to earn money. They'll look upon the elderly, children, and caretakers with disdain (Interestingly, this probably won't help the birth rates either...). The second is that they are protected but those people should be disposed of when they're not useful. This will make them arrogant and introduce the idea of dehumanizing other groups, which will further the cracks of division in our society.

[alistairSH]

That’s by design. Maybe not initially, but we’ve been having this immigration debate as long as I’ve been politically aware, which is going on 4 decades. It absolutely is the desired outcome today.

[JOnAgain]

Kids. Kids are the piece of this policy you haven’t considered. Poor people have kids too. Then you have starving babies in the street and 5 year olds trying to find work to pay for food. Then you might think, “okay, maybe we take care of kids. Healthcare? Food? Education?” Great. But do you have forced separation from parents in order to provide these services just to the kids? What if the parents eat the kids food because they’re starving. Now you have to feed the parents. And providing care for orphans costs more than healthcare for parents, so probably rational to give them healthcare too. And do you want to create a system where having a kid gets you food and healthcare? Probably don’t want that incentive. So now you’re maybe giving food and healthcare to people without kids.

So, whenever you think about purely capitalistic policies with no social policies, we just have to be okay with having a large number of babies and toddlers starving on the streets in front of us.

When you hear about republicans cutting $900 billion from Medicaid, and millions of families losing coverage, that means children. Almost 50% of Medicaid recipients are children. Most of the other 50% are their parents. So millions of children now do not have healthcare. Your post advocates for millions more to lose coverage. That translates to children dying and having lifelong disabilities from otherwise preventable illnesses.

The other inevitable outcome of policies like this is exploitation of women. It might start with “voluntary” sex work, but it becomes a bigger business that invites true exploitation and rapidly leads to human trafficking. Btw, that “voluntary” is there because it’s usually a choice between sex work and spiraling into homelessness and poverty - so not super voluntary to begin with. And we’re not even counting women more women who stay in abusive relationships because they are fully dependent on their partner for sustenance and shelter.

All that is to say that anytime advocate for a certain set of social policies over another, it’s usually informative to look at how they impact the most vulnerable in our society. Start with kids, then consider disabled and women. And finally ask why we’re generally okay with men starving on the street but not toddlers.

[bognition]

Is this a surprise? This is hardly anything new. The United States was built with slavery.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

So do you support building an even higher wall, and doing even more deportations, to keep the so-called "slaves" out?

If the US is so "exploitative", we should be keeping illegal immigrants out for their safety.

[alistairSH]

Generally, republicans want lots of illegals for two reasons… first, cheap labor. Second, it’s a drum to bang during election season.

And democrats only halfway want to fix it. If they actually succeed, they also lose a drum. And have to pay more for chicken and oranges.

Making non-immigrant visa or work permits easy to obtain would be trivial (relative to other gov endeavors). But we don’t. I’m left to conclude the political elite on both sides like it this way.

[tick_tock_tick]

> This is the part that is the wildest to me. The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens

What do you mean seems too. The biggest proponents of immigration routinely ask "who's going to work the fields?" As a call to allow immigration. I don't know how to interpret that as anything but importing an underclass.

[xdennis]

> The current system seems to generate a collection of second-class citizens

Poor choice of words. Illegals are not citizens. That's the whole point.

> have no recourse if they're exploited

The recourse is to go back. In the era when you could just immigrate to the US just by getting on a boat (before the Immigration Act of 1924), about 1/3 of immigrants went back to their home country if they did not make it in the US.

See:

> From 1908 to 1932, 12 million individuals migrated to the United States. Over the same period, four million returned to their source country.

-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00144... (you have to pirate it to view the full thing)

But now, the expectation of leftists is that the government is somehow supposed to help the failed immigrants.

[runtime_terror]

There are no leftists in power in the US government outside of maybe a very small handful. We have not had a leftist president or majority ever, unless you just group neo-liberal democrats into that bucket, which would just be wrong...

Even if true (and it's not), what even is your point? Do you not think people that work and pay taxes should get any benefits? Do you think it's ok that people are exploited if they're immigrants?

It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs, but they do have to pay taxes. Interesting enough, they even commit 50% less crime than citizens.

To think these people can't be exploited and that it's trivial to return to their home countries shows a lack of critical thinking.

For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.

The list of countries that have had their democratically elected leaders overthrown or were otherwise destabilized by the US and its corporate elite is long and well documented.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs

False. Medicaid is US state-subsidized health insurance, which undocumented immigrants are eligible for:

"Children (0–18 years old) can get full Medi-Cal coverage, no matter their immigration status. Adults (19 and older) are currently eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage, regardless of immigration status. Starting on January 1, 2026, adults who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS) will no longer be able to enroll in full Medi-Cal. If you already have coverage, you can keep it; just make sure to renew your coverage during your renewal month."

https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/medi-cal-immigrant-eligibility-faqs/

(Medi-Cal is the California version of Medicaid)

>For example, many of these people flee countries that have dire situations directly caused by US interventions over the past decades including most of Central and South America.

Not everything is the fault of the USA.

Chile, one of the most famous examples of American intervention, is now one of the wealthiest countries in Latam: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?mapSele...

Polls showed most Panamanians approved of Operation Just Cause. You can see after the operation in 1989, Panama's median income started ticking upwards: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-mean-income?tab=lin...

And when the US intervened in Venezuela recently, Venezuelans were dancing on the streets.

As an isolationist, I'm against American interventions. Our track record is mixed at best. But the idea that every world problem, or every South American problem, can be blamed on the US somehow is a vast oversimplification.

[cogman10]

Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.

Federal medicaid funds do not go to illegal immigrants. If a state wants to cover them they have to do that out of state revenue.

Since medicaid is partially state funded and mainly federally funded that's what opens up the door for states to have different rules for eligibility (expanding beyond the federal standard). However, the states have to cover the excess when they decide to do that.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Medi-cal and the Washington state medicaid programs both allow for non-citizens. However, they do not use federal funds to cover non-citizens, they use state funds. They leverage their higher tax revenues to cover.

That would still mean runtime_terror made a false claim: "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" They didn't specify whether the money for welfare or social programs came at the federal vs state level.

[runtime_terror]

We were talking federal funds, that's what I was referring to. I'm well aware MediCal covers immigrants; and I'd argue they should get coverage as they pay taxes after all!

[Der_Einzige]

The person you’re responding to is writing in bad faith and being stupid on purpose. The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.

[cogman10]

> The discourse you are trying to have about immigration with them is exactly why immigration in this country is a disaster.

I agree that bad faith presentations on how things work is definitely a problem. But I think the reason immigration is a disaster is because both republicans and democrats have decided to be xenophobic. There's no political party pushing an alternative narrative. But further, the current system works for big corporate donors. The broken immigration system makes it easy for a company to exploit H1B workers or farm laborers/construction workers.

That, IMO, is why the system is so broken. Our politicians used 9/11 as a way to ramrod in draconian border policies "to fight terrorism" but really because they benefit those that own big businesses.

Until either party decides that immigrants are our neighbors and not scary "criminals" the system will remain completely busted.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Even if the money comes out of the California budget rather than the federal budget, runtime_terror's claim "It's not like undocumented immigrants even get welfare or other social programs" was not fully true. California is half a trillion dollars in debt, and is the only state which hasn't paid back its pandemic loan from the federal government. I sure hope the feds won't be responsible if California collapses.

I'm not even sure how I feel about immigration restriction. But I do want to get the facts straight. Be careful about assuming that anyone who mentions facts which are inconvenient for your worldview is "writing in bad faith" or "being stupid on purpose". That's a fast-track to epistemic closure like we see in religious cults.

[platevoltage]

There are very few Leftists in the USA, and even fewer in government. Who are you talking about?

[array_key_first]

Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people. Very few white people have a lineage to the revolution. Most came from Europe following WWII or, perhaps, before. This most likely includes you.

The idea that the US is composed of true Americans that have been here since the beginning is an outright Republican fantasy. A delusion to make white immigrants feel better about themselves. But it's just not true.

This has always been a country composed of immigrants, and it's always something we've been proud of. We have long been the melting pot. To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.

[lurk2]

> Most people in the US are immigrants, including white people.

If they were born in America they aren’t immigrants.

> To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here.

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790:

> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

[hax0ron3]

There is no "we" on this matter. Americans have been sharply divided about immigrants for a long time going back to the 19th century or even before. There is no such thing as an American consensus on immigration. Certainly you don't get to define what is American and what isn't. Neither do I. You're just one person.

"To think otherwise is anti-American, and you do not belong here." is just a useless emotional thought-terminating phrase.

I say this as an immigrant to the US myself.

[array_key_first]

Americans have not been divided on immigration, this is a conservative revisionist history thing. For the past couple hundred years, everyone has agreed that immigration, as a concept, is a net-benefit for America.

What is different this time is that, for the first time ever, we have people who believe that immigration, as a concept, is not a net-benefit. We can disagree on the amount of immigration, sure.

But never, in our history, has "none" been an acceptable viewpoint. It is fundamentally incompatible with everything this country stands for, going back to our inception. And, before anyone says anything, yes the far-right is trying to stamp out all immigration. They might not say it, but their actions certainly do.

[jfengel]

There are vastly fewer "immigrants for handouts" than right wing media would like you to believe. Coming to the US is incredibly challenging. People who do it are mostly young and wish to work, to support families. Handouts don't accomplish that.

It take tremendous effort to immigrate, legally or illegally. Anyone telling you that they are lazy is obviously lying.

[voakbasda]

As a US native, I have met zero lazy immigrants, but lazy Americans are everywhere I look. Thus I think this sentiment is more a projection of their own behavior: “they must be as lazy as we are”.

[mkw5053]

I think you hit the nail on the head. It maps directly to much of their coalition’s rhetoric, accusations, policy agenda, and behavior these days, including, but not limited to, their obsession with pedophilia.

[throwaway85825]

Americans work more hours a year than most countries.

[alistairSH]

And for all that, we barely beat Germany on labor productivity. Truly working ourselves to death to enrich the Epstein Class.

[actionfromafar]

Best I can give you is Russian oligarchs and criminals, and corporate welfare. Deal?