It’s still not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea. This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I still don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them and they should be removed not rewarded by allowing them to stay. There’s no statute of limitations on this illegal behavior. No one believes that they have a right to move to Paris and live their life there without the permission of the French and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
I'm just speculating here. I could be way off. No one knows except the people in those rooms and with the state of our media no one will ever ask them (or even find out who they are!).
I think there was a mix of political self-interest (the prospect of millions of new voters within a few elections, especially in states like Texas and Pennsylvania and Arizona, must've been very enticing) and utopianism/naivete (helping poor people by letting them in and giving them stuff) and a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure from NGO's and activists and international funding sources (George Soros). Why have dozens of cities implemented bail reform despite its clearly catastrophic public policy implications? Why did the OSF bankroll this effort to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? I think he has a playbook that involves a weakening of national sovereignty and state governments, to the benefit of NGO's and international financial institutions. I can't say exactly how much that playbook contributed to the immigration crisis but it was more than zero. Giving him the PMF wasn't exactly subtle...
Then the situation developed and for 1-2 years the media kind of successfully kept a lid on it and I think that the party and the administration thought that they could control the narrative and mute any popular outrage concerning city debts and misused schools and murdered citizens. By early 2024 it was obvious that was no longer the case. They tried to float a 'compromise' bill and blame its failure on the GOP-but the rage was too considerable by then. 5,000 migrants a day was too many in the eyes of most Americans.
If it was pure political calculus or a rational cost/benefit calculation I think they would've moved swiftly to close the border and reverse the situation as soon as they saw the potential political costs. The fact that they didn't tells me that activism, utopian leanings, and secretive influence on the part of Soros and company might have been decisive, at least for awhile. Otherwise, you're right: it simply doesn't make sense.
It’s still not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea. This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I still don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them and they should be removed not rewarded by allowing them to stay. There’s no statute of limitations on this illegal behavior. No one believes that they have a right to move to Paris and live their life there without the permission of the French and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
I'm just speculating here. I could be way off. No one knows except the people in those rooms and with the state of our media no one will ever ask them (or even find out who they are!).
I think there was a mix of political self-interest (the prospect of millions of new voters within a few elections, especially in states like Texas and Pennsylvania and Arizona, must've been very enticing) and utopianism/naivete (helping poor people by letting them in and giving them stuff) and a TREMENDOUS amount of pressure from NGO's and activists and international funding sources (George Soros). Why have dozens of cities implemented bail reform despite its clearly catastrophic public policy implications? Why did the OSF bankroll this effort to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? I think he has a playbook that involves a weakening of national sovereignty and state governments, to the benefit of NGO's and international financial institutions. I can't say exactly how much that playbook contributed to the immigration crisis but it was more than zero. Giving him the PMF wasn't exactly subtle...
Then the situation developed and for 1-2 years the media kind of successfully kept a lid on it and I think that the party and the administration thought that they could control the narrative and mute any popular outrage concerning city debts and misused schools and murdered citizens. By early 2024 it was obvious that was no longer the case. They tried to float a 'compromise' bill and blame its failure on the GOP-but the rage was too considerable by then. 5,000 migrants a day was too many in the eyes of most Americans.
If it was pure political calculus or a rational cost/benefit calculation I think they would've moved swiftly to close the border and reverse the situation as soon as they saw the potential political costs. The fact that they didn't tells me that activism, utopian leanings, and secretive influence on the part of Soros and company might have been decisive, at least for awhile. Otherwise, you're right: it simply doesn't make sense.