The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
2025-10-15 22:35:30
TP:
Indictment for three women following an ICE agent home and livestreaming it:
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
2025-10-14 15:28:54
Russell:
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
2025-10-14 15:18:40
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
2025-10-13 23:58:53
Pro Bono:
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
Well, there is a difference between coal, LNG and crude oil, right? The US is still a net crude oil importer. It was headed down until 2020.
2025-10-13 14:52:10
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.
Russell:
The waiting in line people are those waiting for consular processing (for a green card) and the quotas that apply. These are people outside the US. If you count the family preferences and business categories, I think it is around 5M. The wait times are published in the Visa Bulletin. It has gotten a lot longer lately. Some categories, especially applied to Mexico, have incredibly long wait times. Decades I think for some.
I would find something along the lines of what you suggest (5 years, no criminal record) acceptable for a starting point of discussion. I have reservations, though. Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be coupled with a secure border so as to not provide an incentive to come illegally. That didn't happen and here we are. And those coming in legally typically need an affidavit of support to prevent them from becoming public charges. How would that be accomplished here? And how to make it fair to those waiting in line? Any path to permanent residency and citizenship should be slower than the legal path and have some sort of cost to it.
Regarding ICE, I too have my concerns based on what I've seen. But the media is fanning the flames here too, methinks. The reporter arrested while "going to the bus stop" allegedly threw an unknown liquid on the officers. I watched an MSNBC compilation of uncooperative detainees and wondered whether the person being arrested had more than just a fear of being deported (as in a criminal record). Verified info would be helpful. The AP announced a Marine dad was arrested and deported while visiting Camp Pendleton. The son says no criminal record. DHS says he was ordered removed in 2005 and has a 2020 conviction for DV and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
DHS responded to the protests outside the Illinois facility with posts showing some of those arrested and countering what it says are Pritzker's "lies." Could our intrepid AP chase this down?
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/15/meet-some-worst-worst-broadview-ice-facility-illinois
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/06/dhs-debunks-governor-pritzkers-harmful-lies-about-operation-midway-blitz-chicago
And regarding the Burlington facility, 20% having a criminal record is pretty high IMO. The question I have is whether the remaining 80% have 1) an order of removal; 2) have been charged with a crime or 3) have any gang affiliation. Information on that would be nice. If the majority are law-abiding, hard working people not dodging an order of removal, I'd have concerns. If they are Abrego Garcia, not so much.
TP:
Indictment for three women following an ICE agent home and livestreaming it:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-three-women-following-ice-agent-home-work-and-livestreaming
DHS' announcement re Portland doxxing here:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/11/anarchists-and-rioters-portland-illegally-dox-ice-officers-and-federal-law
Note that you can actually look up the Antifa group doing this on the web and see the actual posters they were distributing. I'm not going to link to that, for obvious reasons. But I take that as verification of what Noem is saying.
Arrest of a Santa Monica man for doxxing an ICE attorney:
https://smdp.com/news/crime/santa-monica-man-arrested-for-allegedly-doxxing-ice-attorney/
Russell:
I appreciate the numbers view, and I agree that our country can accept a significant number of (legal) immigrants. How many is a policy decision and best made by Congress rather than having that decision made de facto by illegal immigrants.
To be clear, I am in favor of immigration and I am sympathetic to anyone trying to improve their life. I worked professionally in the immigration area years ago (pre-ICE). I too see the very real fear that is out there now. I saw that fear in downtown LA during the Reagan years around the time of amnesty and see it again today amongst the immigrant population when I visit the Pasadena area for work.
As for how this is being handled now, I agree with you to a significant degree. Depending on who you listen to, it either is or is not focusing on those we would all agree should be deported (criminal record, pending criminal charges, gang members, etc.). DHS says 70%. Other reports are much, much less. I'm strongly in favor of deporting anyone who entered without inspection with a conviction or criminal charges pending or gang association. I also think the resistance isn't helping calm things down and that to me is by design. Doxing produced masks, which engender fear and are then criticized as fascist. And on it goes.
As for the rest of those here without papers, how do you prefer those to the 5 million or so waiting in line? There are IMO far more who entered illegally already in the country. I think the numbers are underrepresented. See this MIT-Yale study before the Biden border surge estimating 22M in the country illegally (or more):
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
While that study is contested by the usual think tanks (such as Pew), it seems to open up the possibility that there are a lot more than commonly believed.
Being in the United States without some kind of legal status is a civil, not a criminal, violation.
Your statement doesn't distinguish between visa overstays and entry into the US without inspection. Unless something has recently changed, my understanding is:
If you sneak across the border without inspection, you are a criminal (misdemeanor).
If you overstay your student or tourist visa, you are typically not (civil).
But if you are deported after an overstay and enter again without approval, felony. Same for those denied entry and try to enter again.
Whether or not you or I like the law, that is what I believe it is. The vast majority of the debate centers on those trying to enter without inspection, not the overstays. It also includes those here under Biden's much-expanded rules for asylum and parole, seen as illegitimate by many. Either way, we are not talking about a speeding ticket.
Russell:
When is it appropriate for a nation to borrow? What is accomplished with the money that is borrowed?
Totally valid questions. I was simply focusing on "indifference to deficits." And I think Biden was a mixed bag. I don't cast much if any blame on the COVID spending bills themselves, whether by Biden or Trump. But BBB was such a grab bag. I didn't mind the pure infrastructure components. The resulting IRA was anything but its name. That was simply too much given the huge amount of spending on COVID, IMHO. And that's even before one considers the green pork.
As to the effects of Biden’s “open border policy” on illegal immigration: there were none, because there was no such policy.
This statement just beggars belief. Biden invited the border rush during his campaign. He ended the Remain in Mexico program on day one. He refused to finish construction of the wall. He ordered no deportations in the first 100 days. His administration (Mayorkas) stated that the unlawful presence was not by itself a basis for an enforcement action. Forget the law. Mayorkas expanded parole unlawfully, extending it well beyond the statutory framework. CBP Mobile One anyone? Asylum lost its meaning. We all saw it. This was the top issue for a lot of voters.
I don't understand why you are playing cute with this one, Pro Bono. You acknowledge legal immigration was larger under Trump. Great. The issue is not legal immigration, which most Americans find unobjectionable and welcome.
As for Afghanistan, it was the execution of the withdrawal, as you likely know. There was a way to do it safely. Biden had a date in mind and stuck with it. He owns it.
Pro Bono:
I don't think your comments are as much wrong as ignoring the full picture.
1) Immigration. Immigration was higher in Trump’s first term than in Bidens. Ackman is wrong.
Immigration was higher? By what metric? Legal or illegal? I think naturalizations were higher under Trump in his first term, but illegal border crossings in the south were way up under Biden as soon has he changed remain in Mexico. He hid some of those by granting parole where it had not been granted before. And Biden changed course right before the election. See more here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/
2) Trump in his first term showed himself to be indifferent to the national debt. Ackman is wrong.
I guess it depends on who you read. I do think there is some truth here (Trump being somewhat indifferent in the first term), but I think Biden was far worse than Trump. Frex:
https://www.heritage.org/debt/commentary/the-lefts-7-trillion-lie-biden-far-outpaces-trump-racking-the-national-debt
7) The USA has been a net fossil fuel exporter since 2019. Ackman is wrong.
Well, there is a difference between coal, LNG and crude oil, right? The US is still a net crude oil importer. It was headed down until 2020.
Ok, I forgot that the comments now read in an opposite direction, so a lot has been posted since I started writing this (in spurts, given my crazy schedule). That link by GftNC was particularly interesting, especially the description of how limited the ideologues really are on either side. So the following didn't take all of that into account.
"I think it’s worth exploring how to communicate with MAGAs because, even when King Pussygrabber strokes out on the toilet at three in the morning, we won’t be over the madness. We will still have the MAGA voters, the Republican party’s commitment to the election tactics of Othering and engineered polarization, and the extensive well-funded Republican hate/fear propaganda bubble (Faux, etc) which, for many people, substitutes for news and shapes their voting behavior."
Well, with respect, I probably wouldn’t start like this. Criticizing a side for “othering” by what seems to be to be “othering” of another sort isn’t a winning proposition. And dialing up the rhetoric to 11 isn’t likely to do any good either. And claiming the other side “lies” when the issues are often nuanced only makes each side more entrenched. You could substitute in MSNBC for Faux, Democrat for Republican, woke Democrats for MAGA, and post this on a right-wing site and it would fit right in. And that, IMHO, is the problem.
I’d say the first thing to do is to try to understand the other side. And not the talking heads on TV, but real people of good faith. Why did so many vote for Trump? What policies were behind that decision? Or what was it about Biden/Harris that voters didn’t find attractive? You can argue that the election was lost by not being loud enough, or confrontational enough, or tough enough, but I think that misses the mark.
IMHO, a lot of people that voted for Trump/Vance were not anywhere close to the cartoonish MAGA voter you describe. There were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Trump, just as there were so many reasons to vote for or not vote for Harris. And many of those reasons deserve respect. To claim otherwise is to have blinders on. You can hate a position, but hating the person holding that position is an entirely different matter.
Take just one former Democrat, Bill Ackman, and his voiced reasons for voting for Trump over Harris.
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1844802469680873747
I chose him simply because he has a list handy that I read some time ago. I may not agree with all of his reasons (and you won’t either) but I think his reasons deserve respect on the whole. And this is his list. I think there are several more that could be added, but IMO, numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24 , 28, 31, 33 were quite resonant with those that voted for Trump (not necessarily in that order). Ackman was not “born” or “made” in the sense you describe.
I am deliberately not responding to the specific examples in your post, Wonkie (i.e. Calloway, Walz, healthcare truth, Portland). I just didn’t want you to think those arguments were lost on me. I can acknowledge some validity in what you say. I just didn’t want any differences I have to detract from the tenor of my response.