Comment by xyzelement
7 days ago
I think it's something different than "Americans are passive" - rather, many of them/us perceive the context of what you're seeing very differently. I can share some of this perspective though I don't insist it's the only way to feel.
1. Americans on the ground are clearly feeling the effects of illegal immigration. As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there. In that election we've seen nearly every demographic move more republican than before, and I think this is the key issue for them.
2. In that context, when ICE does something, even when we don't like it, people can understand it in the context of a larger problem they/we want solved. When you perceive "passivity" - it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved which is fine, but it's different for people who like "what" is happening even if not "how" it's happening.
3. There are plenty of people protesting and violently rioting if that's what they feel like.
I don’t think data supports this. Polling has shown a lot of people who voted Republican in 2024 (Latinos especially) have snapped back again already, at least partially because of what ICE is doing.
ICE are terrorizing a city and its residents no matter what their immigration status is. Even someone who strongly wishes to curb illegal immigration should have a problem with that.
I would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.
There's an interesting other angle that I heard about "terrorizing a city" type thing -- there are many million illegal immigrants in the US who entered in just the last few years, when the prior admin did not attempt to limit. The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone. Maybe like "nobody wants to hear about an amputation" but unfortunately some situations are bad enough that you have to.
> The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone.
Why not? What is it about the presence of illegal immigrants in a place that makes terrorizing the entire population a good tradeoff? The people who live alongside these immigrants are the ones out on the street protesting so it seems to me they don't consider it a price worth paying.
> The size of the problem basically leaves no "nice" solutions that are perfectly palatable to everyone. Maybe like "nobody wants to hear about an amputation" but unfortunately some situations are bad enough that you have to.
Are you volunteering to be part of the bad solution, or is it only OK as long as it happens far enough away from you? I'm curious because when you talk about needing an amputation, you're referring to American citizens getting killed and having their rights taken away for the sake of some nebulous solution. Where have I heard that before?
2 replies →
>I would bet that's true just on a statistical level - but my point is that plenty of people still feel that way, or at least have felt that way recently enough about the underlying problem that won't cause them to riot.
Exactly. If people you hate are getting in a fight you're staying right there on the porch and that's how a lot of the country feels right now.
> As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there.
Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story. Edit: others explained that this is "work out" there, and not related to being a janitor. Thanks. I feel the rest still stands.
Further, I don't understand how what is happening is supposed to solve the "underlying issue". How does 3000 federal agents breaking windows and shoving people in Minneapolis help a Brooklyn community poor enough to become a shanty town? It would be like if I, in my job, had an backend outage on our website, and I went to the design team and began berating them while I fixed a couple UI issues. Sure, I might solve some real problems, and it could feel good in some cathartic way (especially if I've had unanswered complaints for years). But I wouldn't call it "fixing the underlying issues".
I believe it is most likely that the people who still support this style of enforcement have been hurt much like you, some acutely but many just slowly over time, and have bought into the idea that some "other" is at fault. And they want to see that "other" dealt with in some way, any way. Even if it means people get hurt, because they themselves have been hurt. So why not the "other"?
But I don't believe a shanty town in the most populous city what is supposed to be the richest and most prosperous country on Earth is caused by the poorest few percent of people living here. I don't think an illegal immigrant in Minneapolis is at fault, even if they have a "criminal background" (insidious phrasing that inflates numbers by lumping in people who may have paid their debt to society). I don't want to see people hurt.
> > As an example: a an African American janitor in our kids' school voted republican in 2024 for the first time in his life, because the park in his Brooklyn neighborhood has become a shanty town and he can't work out there.
> Okay, first off, I am just very confused by this sentence. How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working? Does he work from his home in Brooklyn? Is the school located in the park? Does he want to work in the park but is force to work at the school? I know this isn't the most important part, but I haven't been able to parse the story.
So just to clarify, GP said he was being prevented from _working out_, i.e. exercising.
Ah, my bad. That does seem to lower the stakes a bit.
> How is the "shanty town" preventing him from working?
Not working; working out.
My bad. Thanks for clarifying.
[dead]
> it's because you come in from a perspective of not wanting the underlying problem solved
Where is this assumption coming from? Of course I don't want people to break the laws of the country or immigrate illegally, I never argued for that either.
What I don't understand, if Obama managed to throw out more illegals than Trump did for the same duration of time, yet with a lot less chaos and bloodshed, and you truly want less illegal immigrants, should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?
There is a huge difference between turning people away at the border and tallying a "deportation", and removing people from the interior of the US.
The flow of illegal aliens crossing the border has largely been eliminated. [1]
> should you favor a more peaceful and efficient process? Instead of a more violent and less efficient process?
I want a process that actually works. There has been no serious headway made in the number of illegal aliens for decades until now. [2]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Your sources don’t say what you’re claiming.
The BBC piece is about recorded apprehensions/encounters being very low (still “<9,000/month”), not that the “flow” is “largely eliminated.” Encounters aren’t the same thing as total unlawful entries, and “very low” isn’t “eliminated.” https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wd8938e8o
The ABC/Brookings story is about net migration turning negative in 2025, mostly due to fewer entries. Net migration is not a measure of the unauthorized population, and the article even notes removals in 2025 are only modestly higher than 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-n...
Also, the claim “no headway for decades until now” is inconsistent with standard estimates: Pew shows a decline from 2007 to 2019 in the unauthorized population. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...
4 replies →
I saw you were briefly downvoted but you're correct. The number and % of illegal immigrants in the us has shot up in an unprecedented way during the prior administration, meaning whatever techniques could be argued to have worked earlier (although to your point, did they work?) may not be adequate to current scope of problem.
A shanty town? In Brooklyn? Yeah, all those hipster trusties who couldn't afford Manhattan (but can still drop 5k a month on a studio in BedStuy or Williamsburg) are really making things bad there.
You ever visited Brooklyn back when it was actually a tough place?
Yes I grew up in Brooklyn.
The black dude I am referring to was complaining about illegals permanently camping out in his neighborhood park.
Where is there plenty of people violently rioting?
What people voted for 14 months ago and how ICE is being used are two different things. Polling shows a majority of Americans do not support how ICE is behaving and do not feel like it is making them safer. There are not plenty of people "violently rioting" at this point. Blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents isn't rioting. If you want to see what violent riots look like, see the Iranian footage.
I think your second part of the most makes my point -- most americans are overall OK with what's going on because of the underlying issue. That's why it doesn't look like Iran.
On the first part, I hope the last few elections made it clear that polling is... unreliable at best. For example, asking the question like "in light of the recent shooting of Renee Good, do you feel ICE is making your city safer" vs asking "Do you feel like having removed X,XXX illegal immigrants with prior convictions has made your city safer" would yield a very different result.
For what it's worth, as an immigrant myself and a typical over-educated NY liberal (at least, formerly) I don't like the details of what's going on but I understand why it is.
> What people voted for 14 months ago and how ICE is being used are two different things.
I'm sure lots of people who voted for Hitler in Germany said the same thing in hindsight. Of course they did absolutely nothing to help stop Hitler after voting for him. They just want to pretend they had nothing to do with all the bad stuff despite the vote clearly being in support of "Bad Stuff". There's a meme floating around that goes something like:
2015: You're overreacting!
2016: You're overreacting!
2017: You're overreacting!
2018: You're overreacting!
2019: You're overreacting!
2020: You're overreacting!
2021: You're overreacting!
2022: You're overreacting!
2023: You're overreacting!
2024: You're overreacting!
2025: How could we possibly have known things would have gone this way?!
I suspect that these people misattribute poverty and urban decay to illegal immigration when it’s largely a home-grown issue -- in large part due to a concerted effort from right-wing media to slander those immigrants.
And the wealth-extractive effects of those who illegally employ those same immigrants.
And right wing media NEVER blames employers for knowingly hiring illegal laborers.
I wonder why.
I live in Europe, in an immigrant ghetto. Well, I'm not sure whether the word "immigrant" is correct, because most residents are second or third generation and have passports.
The cultural gap is just too much. There are explosions 24/7 and the amount of trash on the street hurts my eyes. A party by my window at 2AM - check. It happens that you have a group of six guys walking down the middle of the road and the fuck are you going to do. There's only so much you can explain by poverty and lack of privilege - especially when they were born in one of the world's richest countries while the country I am from started poor but developed immensely.
When voting, immigration policies are for me #1 issue. I just don't want the entire Europe to look like this.
You got downvoted for stating your experience in a way that feels unpalatable to someone who doesn't have to deal with this. But your story is a perfect example of what I am talking about. If you live in MN or somewhere else that's drastically changed in this way in recent years, you're (a) thrilled that someone is finally doing something and (b) just not gonna be super upset about things that go wrong in the process even though obviously you don't want them going wrong.
[dead]