Frumpy Drumpy Dumb Dumb Trumpy and his cult of unwashed uneducated hooligans are on suicide watch as his fascist deportation agenda implodes in their ugly faces
American sentiment for desiring an increase in immigration is nearing an all time high of 26%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigration-abated.aspx
Surge in U.S. Concern About Immigration Has Abated

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today. At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.

These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups.

With illegal border crossings down sharply this year, fewer Americans than in June 2024 back hard-line border enforcement measures, while more favor offering pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S.

These findings are based on a June 2-26 Gallup poll of 1,402 U.S. adults, including oversamples of Hispanic and Black Americans, weighted to match national demographics.

The same poll finds many more Americans disapproving than approving of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration. Trump’s 21% approval rating on the issue among Hispanic adults is below his 35% rating nationally, with the deficit likely reflecting that group’s low support for some of the administration’s signature immigration policies.

Fewer Americans Want Immigration Decreased
After climbing to 55% in 2024, the percentage of Americans who say immigration should be reduced has dropped by nearly half to 30%. Sentiment is thus back to the level measured in 2021, before the desire for less immigration started to mount. Meanwhile, 38% now want immigration kept at its current level, and 26% say it should be increased.

Americans' Preferred Rate of Immigration to the U.S., Full Trend
Thinking now about immigrants — that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States — in your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?
Use the buttons below to view recent and full trends.
Recent trend Full trend

Line graph. Trend from 1965 to 2025 in Americans' preferred approach to immigration in the U.S. The 30% who want to see decreased immigration in the most recent poll, from June 2025, is down sharply from the 55% recorded a year ago. The all-time high was 65%, measured in 1993 and 1995. The percentage wanting increased immigration, now 26%, is up from 16% in 2024 and down from a trend-high 34% in 2020. The percentage wanting immigration to stay at its present level, now 38%, represents a return to the high levels near or above 40% in the 2010s, after dipping to 26% in 2024.
% Increased% Kept at present level% Decreased
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
0
20
40
60
80%
38
30
26
1986 results are from a CBS/New York Times poll.
Get the data Download image

With illegal immigration levels down dramatically and refugee programs suspended, the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%. Among independents, this sentiment is down 21 points to 30%, and among Democrats, down 12 points to 16%.

Republicans are the only group still showing at least plurality support for reducing immigration. Independents are most likely to favor maintaining current levels, while a plurality of Democrats favor increasing it.

Republicans' Preferred Rate of Immigration to the U.S.
Thinking now about immigrants — that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States — in your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?
Use the buttons below to view party trends.
Republicans Independents Democrats

Line graph showing Republicans’ views on U.S. immigration levels from 2001 to 2025. In 2025, 48% say immigration should decrease, 36% say it should stay the same, and 11% say it should increase.
% Increased% Kept at present level% Decreased
2001
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90%
36
48
11
Get the data Download image

Record High Say Immigration Benefits Nation
When asked if immigration is generally a good thing or bad thing for the country, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults call it a good thing; a record-low 17% see it as a bad thing.

This is consistent with the long-term pattern of more Americans viewing immigration as helpful than harmful to the country. But today’s endorsement is up from 64% last year and represents a reversal of the downward trend seen in this view from 2021 to 2024.

Americans' Views on Immigration's Effect on the U.S.
On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

Line graph. Trend from 2001 to 2025 in the percentages of Americans saying immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for the country. In the current poll, 79% say immigration is a good thing, a trend high, and 17% say it's a bad thing, a trend low. The prior high calling immigration a "good thing," was 77% in 2020.
% Good thing% Bad thing
2001
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
17
79
The percentages who volunteer that the effects are "mixed" or who do not have an opinion are not shown.
Get the data Download image

The recent jump in perceptions of immigration being a good thing is largely owed to a sharp increase among Republicans and, to a lesser extent, independents. These groups’ views have essentially rebounded to 2020 levels after souring in the intervening years.

Democrats’ belief that immigration is beneficial to the country is also up slightly, to a record-high 91%. However, this is generally consistent with their highly positive perspective on immigration over the past decade, with at least 80% calling it a good thing each year since 2016.

Partisans' Views on Immigration's Effect on the U.S.
On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?
% Good thing

Line graph. Trend from 2001 to 2025 in the percentage of Americans saying immigration is a good thing for the U.S., by political party. Currently, 91% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 64% of Republicans say it is a good thing. These are record highs for Democrats and independents and the highest since 2015 for Republicans.
RepublicansIndependentsDemocrats
2001
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
80
64
91
Get the data Download image

More Citizenship, Less Enforcement
In addition to supporting increased or stable immigration levels, more Americans now favor offering undocumented immigrants pathways to citizenship, while fewer support stringent measures to deter or reverse illegal immigration.

In terms of impeding illegal immigration at the source, support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents has declined 17 points to 59%, from 76% a year ago. And backing for expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall has dropped eight points to 45%. This likely reflects people perceiving these measures as less necessary given the sharp drop in illegal border crossings.

Yet, support is also lower today for deporting all undocumented immigrants, with 38% now favoring this as the administration is attempting it, down from 47% last year when it was a Trump campaign promise. However, it should be noted that last year’s support for deportation was uniquely high. Today’s level matches where it stood in 2019 (at 37%) and is slightly higher than when first measured in 2016 (32%).

In terms of a new policy being debated this year, Americans give lukewarm support to denying alleged gang members the ability to challenge deportation in court — half favor this being done, while 45% oppose it.

Meanwhile, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens has risen to 78%, up from 70% last year. This is also back to the level of support seen in 2019 (81%) while slightly lower than in 2016 (84%). Approval is higher still, albeit statistically unchanged, for offering individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children a pathway to citizenship, with support holding above 80%.


Recent Trend in Public Support for Immigration Proposals
Please tell me whether you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose each of the following proposals.
% Strongly favor/Favor

Table with bar chart comparing 2024 and 2025 U.S. support for immigration proposals. Support rose for citizenship paths (85%), while favor for deportation and wall expansion declined.
Table with 4 columns and 6 rows.
2024 2025 Change
% % (pct. pts.)
Allowing immigrants, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time 81 85 4
44
Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time 70 78 8
88
Hiring significantly more Border Patrol agents 76 59 −17
−17−17
Denying alleged gang members living in the U.S. illegally the ability to challenge their deportation in court * 50 n/a
n/a
Significantly expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border 53 45
Deporting all immigrants who are living in the United States illegally back to their home country 47 38 −9
−9−9
* Item not included in 2024
Get the data Download image

The declines in support for hiring more border agents and deporting all undocumented immigrants are mainly due to less support from independents and Democrats. Independents are also primarily responsible for the slip in support for expanding the construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border. Republicans’ support for each of these measures remains high.

Meanwhile, the eight-point increase in support for giving immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens reflects increased support from all party groups, with the biggest gain among Republicans (up 13 points to 59%).

Recent Trend in Public Support for Immigration Proposals, by Party
Figures represent percentages who favor or strongly favor each policy.

The table displays public support by party for six immigration policy proposals across two years, 2024 and 2025. The most recent data from 2025 show that 96% of Democrats, 85% of independents and 71% of Republicans favor a path to citizenship for immigrants brought illegally as children. For immigrants living illegally in the U.S., 93% of Democrats, 79% of independents and 59% of Republicans support a path to citizenship.
Table with 7 columns and 7 rows.
Republicans Independents Democrats
2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025
% % % % % %
Path to citizenship for immigrants brought illegally as children 64 71 82 85 97 96
Path to citizenship for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally 46 59 72 79 87 93
Hire significantly more Border Patrol agents 95 91 69 53 70 41
Significantly expand walls along U.S.-Mexico border 91 88 51 37 17 17
Deport all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally 84 77 41 31 22 14
Deny alleged gang members living in the U.S. illegally the ability to challenge deportation * 61 * 49 * 43
* Item not included in 2024
Get the data Download image

Majority Disapprove of Trump’s Handling of Immigration
Perhaps because of Americans’ opposition to immigration policies that Trump has enacted to remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S., their evaluation of his work on immigration is mostly negative. Thirty-five percent approve of his handling of the issue, including 21% strongly approving, while 62% disapprove, including 45% strongly.

>>1419861 (OP)
Can anyone name another nation besides the US that offers money for illegals to self-deport, rather than risk getting caught?

>>1419861 (OP)
lol. Nah. Legal immigration is not the same thing as deporting illegal aliens. Nice try though.

Everywhere I look there are illegal aliens. He must be the worst fascist of all time.

>>1419880
>>1419875
>>1419872
cope magat

>>1419861 (OP)
What "deportation agenda?" There's been no let up in the invasion of two-legged invasive species. Like everything else about Trump, it is a fraud. Trump seems likely to do a Reagan and declare an amnesty. The one thing that he's true to his word about is support for any atrocity the jews do, because that who pays him and has the Epstein client list.

>>1419875
Did Elvis Presley's manager Col. Tom Parker have the right to live in the US? Yes or No. Think very carefully before answering, as your right to have opinions depends on your answer being the only one possible

>>1419893
>Col. Tom Parker wasn't an American
The think tank was very certain to make that as clear as possible on his Wikipedia page when they edited it on April 30th of this year
https://files.catbox.moe/izb49x.png

Cope harder. The majority of others agree with Trump and it's not stopping for four years

>>1419896
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Tom_Parker
>Parker was born in the Netherlands and entered the United States illegally when he was 20 years old. He adopted a new name and claimed to have been born in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonel_Tom_Parker
>According to this Wikipedia article Andreas van Kuijk first came to the US in 1927. However, according to the "Holland - Amerika Lijn" passenger list he was sent back from New York to the Netherlands on March 20, 1926. He returned home to Rotterdam on the steamship "Veendam". The address he was registered at was Spanjaardstraat 110, Rotterdam. The entry in the passenger list shows the voyage was paid for by the US government. The passenger lists can be viewed online at the Rotterdam Archives
Facts speak more than a 'think tank' ever could. So I'd like to ask >>1419875 again:
Did Elvis Presley's manager Col. Tom Parker have the right to live in the US? Yes or No.

>>1419861 (OP)
>American sentiment for desiring an increase in immigration is nearing an all time high of 26-%

> the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today.

>At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.

>>1419861 (OP)
Hint: few people have a problem with immigrant doctors or engineers. Plenty of people, including Latinos and Latinas, have a problem with people immigrating illegally.

>>1419893
>>1419917
>What about this one person you've never heard of before today who was living illegally in the US in but then left in 1926 but then came back and then happened to become a talent manager for a singer who was popular in the 50s
Lol, those are some thin straws you are grasping there anon.

Who is supposed to care? I swear, it's like you are a foreigner thinking Americans still worship or even care Elvis Presley or something... That's boomer era stuff

What country do you live in?

>>1419893 #
>>1419917 #
>What about this one person you've never heard of before who was living illegally in the US in 1926 but then and then came back again and later happened to become a talent manager for a singer who was popular in the 50s
Lol, those are some thin straws you are grasping there anon.

Who is supposed to care? I swear, it's like you are a foreigner thinking Americans still worship or even care Elvis Presley or something... That's boomer era stuff

What country do you live in?

>>1419920
and people born in the US have a problem with being called illegal

>>1419893
>>1419917
>What about this one person you've never heard of before who was living illegally in the US in 1926 but then left and then came back again later and at some point happened to become a talent manager for a singer who was popular in the 50s
Lol, those are some thin straws you are grasping there anon.

Who is supposed to care? I swear, it's like you are a foreigner thinking Americans still worship or even care Elvis Presley or something... That's boomer era stuff

What country do you live in?

>>1419923
>boomer
So you hate them. Yes or No?
>illegal immigration is okay when they're white
So you're a hypocrite. Yes or No?

>>1419920
>have a problem with people immigrating illegally
Weird how thats not the people ICE is going after to try to meet an impossible quota
And no one cares about fake 'revoke their visa then arrest them before they can appeal and thats deporting someone here illegally' bullshit

>>1419927
>Me: some cherry picked dude from the 1920s is pretty irrelevant, and his wrongs then don't make a right now
>You: aha! You think it's ok when he does it because he's fucking white! Racist
My lord you need help

>>1419930
So you're a hypocrite? Yes or No.
You like boomers? Yes or No.

>>1419932
Both no. Anything else I can clear up for you?

>>1419934
So you hate boomers. And you're a hypocrite.

>>1419934
you should try some cubensis some day, it might cure you of your fascism

>>1419936
Whatever helps you sleep at night

>>1419937
>Drugs cure conservatism
Is that why the rate of antidepressant prescriptions amongst self identified liberals is roughly twice that of the general population?

>>1419941
I sleep fine knowing I'm not a hypocrite

>>1419942
>Is that why the rate of antidepressant prescriptions amongst self identified liberals is roughly twice that of the general population?
You faggots love meaningless stats they think look good.
Most Republicunts, like yourself, simmer in undiagnosed mental illnesses.

>>1419881
I'll take that as a no. You cannot name another country that does that.

>>1419881
YWNBW

>>1419944
Brain damage causes republicanism ergo John fetterman

>>1419949
>>1419944
Stats and mathematics corrupt Republican minds

>>1419947
You will never be a man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guve7Y856kY

>>1419861 (OP)
he'll still win so who cares leftists are subhuman bigots "shut up racist" your favorite catch phrase

>>1419924
There’s a fix for that. Leaving.

>>1419929
Question: why is it that the dems are ferociously defending the worst of the worst if they aren’t who is being deported? It’s like they’re reverse cherry picking.

>>1419963
>Well they're not doing it now but they would do it so-
Hey, did you know even the worst serial rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles still have human rights and can't be treated the way we've been treating these migrants?

>>1419968
No they don't have any rights, except for the right to have 2a exercised against them.
They only have rights when in the care of the government. Allowing them to get that far is a mistake.

>>1419929
This!

>>1419861 (OP)
ICEs us of unnecessary force and their entire gazpacho approach are more than enough to instll fear in most people... if you don't stand up now, when will you? only when they come for you? if some of us are not free all of us are not free. act now before it is too late

>>1419984
The only ones coming after innocent citizens so far are the democrats

>>1419984
Where were you when the FBI was dropping the hammer on right-wingers? You didn't stand up for us then. Now you get to feel what it's like.

>>1419988
Hey what did those right-wingers do again? I seem to remember threatening to kidnap officials, shoot up walmarts, and oh yeah, literally break into the capitol building to dispute an election by force.

But hey, I really implore you to see videos of crying children being forced into the backs of unmarked vans and say "yeah, they're doing the right thing".

>>1419989
>and oh yeah, literally break into the capitol building to dispute an election by force.
I forgot, it's only okay when you do it. Like when you tried to storm the white house to remove Trump on May 30th, 2020.

Yeah how many people were charged for throwing molotovs, burning down at least one building and injuring 60+ secret service? Oh yeah... one, for destruction of government property.

>>1419989
I wish I had NPC opinions like this, it seems like it must be nice going with the hivemind and acting like a drooling retard all the time
>inb4 what about...
>inb4 oh like _____ do?

>>1419994
can you faggots hurry up and drink the koolaid already

>>1419991
>Like when you tried to storm the white house to remove Trump on May 30th, 2020
I'm sorry, when did they physically break into the white house though?

>>1419998
They failed to make it past the armed guards

>>1419997
What Kool aid? I'm not a Trump guy and you're a fucking spamming reddit faggot, case closed. You should suck off a shotgun and pretend it's your dad's penis.

>>1420016
sorry i triggered you cult member

>>1420017
Knowing there's hundreds of thousands of onions guzzling queers just like you out there is a bit triggering ngl

>>1420019
esl

>>1419998
>I'm sorry, when did they physically break into the white house though?
It was an unsuccessful coup attempt (sound familiar?) that only failed because the National Guard was there to stop it.

Guess what Jan 6th didn't have?

>>1420041
>It was an unsuccessful coup attempt
no, it wasn't a coup attempt
it was protestors knocking over some barricades on the street near the white house

>>1420041
>Guess what Jan 6th didn't have?
Yeah and who was proven to ask them not to deploy the national guard? Oh right. Trump.

>>1420110
Trump did not order anyone not to deploy the national guard on Jan 6 but reality has ceased to be relevant to you folk

>>1420114
>the person who tells the national guard what to do didn't tell them what not to do
nice mental gymnastics

>>1420110
>Yeah and who was proven to ask them not to deploy the national guard? Oh right. Trump.
Oh really? Trump said do not deploy the national guard? Well that's very strange because we have this quote from General Milley (who hates Trump) that says THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID FAGGOT.

>Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.' [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, 'Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.'”

>>1420115
>>the person who tells the national guard what to do didn't tell them what not to do
>he thinks the president has to micromanage every individual task of the entire military 24/7
Tell me you don't know how the chain of command works without telling me.

Also:
>Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed herself for the lack of National Guard troops at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, video footage released by House Republicans on Monday showed.

>>1420117
when you're a known liar longer posts just make you look worse

>>1420119
Did Trump say to make sure there was sufficient National Guard at Jan 6th? Yes or no.

>>1419861 (OP)
I think Trump bitchified them enough they'll keep purchasing Trump lube for months. If they get out of hand, Q will return and iceberg them...

You have to be self-aware to consider suicide. The MAGA cult has given up any sense of self to be obedient to the cult leaders.

>>1420117
>Oh really? Trump said do not deploy the national guard? Well that's very strange because we have this quote from General Milley (who hates Trump) that says THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID FAGGOT.
Actions speak louder than words retard. Did Trump deploy the National Guard on 1/6? No. Was he requested to deploy the National Guard when they breached the capitol? Yes. Did it warrant deploying the National Guard when they breached the capitol? Also yes.

>>1420142
>its Trumps fault that his backstabbing underlings like Pelosi didn't follow his explicit orders!!!

1420147
How are you capable of breathing when you're this stupid

>>1420148
>According to Sund’s testimony before a House subcommittee, House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving rejected the request, saying Speaker Nancy Pelosi would “never go for it.” Sund said Irving dismissed the idea over “optics” and claimed intelligence didn’t justify the move.

So just to clarify, you fags claimed Trump said do not deploy the National Guard when it turns out that not only did he NOT say that, he's quoted as telling everyone below him "make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event."

Meanwhile, Irving on Pelosi's chain of command REPEATEDLY refused to send the National Guard after multiple requests by Sund.

>>1420155
So you're either lying about Pelosi directly rejecting the request, or lying that Pelosi wasn't asked and the House Sergeant just believed she would 'never go for it' with no reasoning.

Either way you're just lying. No one can trust anything that comes out of your dishonest shill mouth.
Go kill yourself

>>1420156
So Steven Sund didn't ask repeatedly for National Guard, and was denied by Irving? Yes or no.

>>1420157
Pick one, you said no here >>1420147
And you said yes here >>1420155
Either way you're a lying faggot.
Please kill yourself instead of replying

>>1420159
>Pick one, you said no here
>Milley: “The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protestors here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.’… [POTUS said] I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.' [SecDef] Miller responds by saying, 'Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.'”

>And you said yes here
>According to Sund’s testimony before a House subcommittee, House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving rejected the request, saying Speaker Nancy Pelosi would “never go for it.” Sund said Irving dismissed the idea over “optics” and claimed intelligence didn’t justify the move.

>Either way you're a lying faggot.
Worst case of projection ever. It must be tough to admit that not only were you wrong about Trump saying don't send the national guard, but it was actually a top democrat that held them back.

>>1419862
>plurality of Democrats favor increasing immigration
*but only if those immigrants don't come to their own city

important bit of nuance. We all saw what happened with the busing. Democrats do NOT want increased immigration in their own cities.

>>1420168
>We all saw what happened with the busing. Democrats do NOT want increased immigration in their own cities.
There's a difference between "immigration" and "Suddenly dropping off hundreds of individuals in the middle of a city without setting up any housing for them". You can't just release people somewhere where housing is already expensive with absolutely no framework for them and not expect issues with that; it's not only cruel (the alternative would effectively letting them join the homeless population) but it also doesn't even work for a "see, this is what we have to deal with!" pov because immigrants don't go to areas with high as fuck price of living in the first place.

>>1420172
How did you type that without any sense of self awareness?

>>1420172
>You can't just release people somewhere where housing is already expensive with absolutely no framework for them and not expect issues with that;
NTA, it's what you did to us at the border faggot. You had no problem with Biden forcing us to take in millions each year, but a couple hundred at your door step was a state emergency.

>>1420174
Good post

>>1420173
>>1420174
>So you're fine with gallons of water running through your kitchen sink, but when I suddenly dump it on your bed there's suddenly a problem with there being water in your house?

Hey, I have an idea. Let's move thousands of homeless people from new york to the middle of say, Austin, and see how many problems it creates when you suddenly bring people to an area where they can't afford to live. The irony is migrants know to go to areas where they can actually get housing, because they're not getting tricked by a lying governor to be used as a human political pawn.

>>1420172
>There's a difference between "dropping off millions of individuals at the border of Texas" and "dropping off hundreds of individuals in the middle of a Democrat city"
okay
>because immigrants don't go to areas with high as fuck price of living in the first place
yeah they come to Republican areas with lower population density and then drive up the price of living there. So fuck off. You voted for them, you take them in.

>>1420178
>So you're fine with dumping millions of gallons of water on MY bed but when I take a few of those gallons and dump them on YOUR bed there's suddenly a problem?
FTFY you fucking idiot. God leftists are terrible at analogies. YOU voted to flood Texas with immigrants even after Texas already told you that they were full and couldn't handle the immigrants.

>>1420178
>>So you're fine with gallons of water running through your kitchen sink, but when I suddenly dump it on your bed there's suddenly a problem with there being water in your house?
There are several problems with your dogshit analogy, starting with the fact that we don't have the capacity, infrastructure, housing, food, water, etc. to take in millions of "refugees" each year - yet you expect us to.

>Hey, I have an idea. Let's move thousands of homeless people from new york to the middle of say, Austin
Because Austin doesn't have any homeless people, right?

>and see how many problems it creates when you suddenly bring people to an area where they can't afford to live.
Again, the same problem you gave us by the millions each year.

>The irony is migrants know to go to areas where they can actually get housing,
Oh they do?

>>1420183
>You voted for them, you take them in.
You don't like the reality of living near the border, move.

>Texas already told you that they were full and couldn't handle the immigrants.
Maybe if you actually did something about your corrupt as fuck state officials embezzling millions of dollars, including THROUGH THE VERY BUS PROGRAM YOU'RE USING AS PROTEST, you might not be so strained. And the irony is, you finally get your beloved president who does everything you ever wanted about the border, and now they're complaining they have no field workers. You got what you wanted and now you're begging for even more fucking help. Maybe the issue was never the immigrants and more the fact Texas keeps electing corrupt officials who scapegoat immigrants for why they keep stealing money.

>>1420186
NTA, god you're a piece of shit.

>You don't like the reality of living near the border, move.
Why should we have to move because of what faggots like you from out of state put us through? You wanted these immigrants, you can take them in.

>Maybe if you actually did something about your corrupt as fuck state officials
Maybe if YOU actually did something about your corrupt as fuck state officials places like New York wouldn't have to declare a state of emergency over a dozen busses of migrants, receiving less than 1% of what Texas gets each year.

>>1420186
You don't like the reality of getting migrants bussed to your city, stop voting for them.

>>1420189
Wait, so we're back to illegally trafficking migrants with no documentation to lib cities out of spite?
Aren't you trying to deport them?
Why are you so fucking stupid?

>>1420186
I refuse to believe anyone can argue in bad faith like this without being paid.

>>1420187
>Why should we have to move because of what faggots like you from out of state put us through? You wanted these immigrants, you can take them in.
You don't wanna deal with immigrants, don't be near the fucking border. This is a simple fuckin concept.

>Maybe if YOU actually did something about your corrupt as fuck state officials places like New York wouldn't have to declare a state of emergency over a dozen busses of migrants, receiving less than 1% of what Texas gets each year.
New York City isn't the entire state of Texas and they're not having them dropped off in positions designed to be inconvenient for everyone involved. Shame for New York they wanna treat people as humans instead of rats.

And what did you do when Trump give you exactly what you want? Bitch about how you have no farmhands now and STILL complaining about having too many migrants. ICE can't even meet their own quotas. Maybe the issue was always your failing leadership you keep reelecting on the same issues they keep complaining about but never fix. I've got zero sympathy left when you won't kick Cruz or Abbott out of power.

>>1420194
>You don't wanna deal with immigrants, don't be near the fucking border. This is a simple fuckin concept.
Or here's an even better idea: you can let the state of Texas put up their own barriers at the border instead of sending feds to tear it all down.

No? Well then get ready for more busloads, faggot.

>>1420194
You don't wanna deal with immigrants being bussed to NYC, don't be in fucking NYC. This is a simple fucking concept.

>won't kick Abbott out of power
But his bussing fixed the migrant crisis and forced NPCs like you to admit that migrants are a burden (when they go to Democrat areas), why would Texas kick him out of power?

>>1420197
>you can let the state of Texas put up their own barriers at the border instead of sending feds to tear it all down.
Hey, maybe use human methods of barriers and not razor wire that drowns pregnant women. Maybe then the federal government won't have to take you to court before you start an international incident on your behalf.

>No? Well then get ready for more busloads, faggot.
Gotta love how you've looped around from "Deport migrants" to "Traffick them". Really encourages people to jump the border in texas doesn't it? They'll literally bring you somewhere it's harder for ICE to get you.

Oh, but don't mind the millions of taxpayer dollars getting kicked back to Abbott and pals through those bus services. After all, Texans love giving state officials all their money while their own disaster prevention systems go unfunded.

>>1420192
>so we're back to
no, now we have a real president in charge so the border is secure
>Aren't you trying to deport them?
yes but your sanctuary city makes that hard
>Why are you so fucking stupid?
lol says the idiots stupid enough to vote for unlimited immigration and then got shocked when you started getting some immigrants near you

>>1420201
>Border is secure
>Still bitching about too many migrants
>Now also bitching how there's no one working farmland
Sounds like the issue didn't get solved, you just added another one because now those migrants aren't coming to work either.

>>1420200
Dumbass, the threat of bussing is for when you idiots vote for open borders again. We are letting you know that if you elect another open-borders president, the bussing will continue.

Don't you remember all the "the bussing will continue until the border improves" posts? Well now thanks to Republicans the border is secure so there is no need for bussing. But as soon as you idiots get back in power and open the border again, the bussing will resume. You're too stupid to understand that concept though so you will still vote for open borders and then complain about getting exactly what you voted for

>>1420202
We don't have too many new migrants. We have too many migrants who came in before. How can somebody too stupid to understand this concept call anybody else stupid? Biden alone let in like 7,000,000 migrants, it's hard to deport all of them.

>>1420199
>But his bussing fixed the migrant crisis
No it didn't lol. You're still bitching about it to this day AND he got millions in kickbacks from those busing companies. The only difference is now Texas is also complaining about a labor shortage.

Funny how ICE is working off Texas' numbers btw and has yet to meet the quota based on them though, right? Almost like maybe, those numbers weren't exactly accurate...

>>1420203
>>1420204
>Ok now the issue isn't that there's all these migrants, now it's there's too many migrants! Even though we keep reporting all these record numbers of deportations, there's still too many!
>But uh, also, can some of those guys please work my fields and staff my restaurants
Remember the cycle: There's too many migrants coming through > votes for border shit > there's too many migrants here > votes for deportation shit > there's too many migrants coming through

You retards are sheep and only when your corrupt as fuck state government dies will you maybe see the end of this problem.

>>1420200
>Hey, maybe use human methods of barriers and not razor wire that drowns pregnant women.
Maybe you can pay for these human methods, provided they're actually effective (meaning they don't come here). Until then we'll stick with what works.

>Maybe then the federal government won't have to take you to court before you start an international incident on your behalf.
1) What the fuck is Mexico going to do to the US military? Seriously.
2) If you're that worried about starting an international incident then start taking these illegals off our hands. If you can't be bothered to give a fuck about our needs, then I can't be bothered with you having to deal with an international incident. Your problem, not mine fag.

>Gotta love how you've looped around from "Deport migrants" to "Traffick them".
If you won't let us keep them out then we have to get creative. One way or another we're not dealing with this shit anymore. Time you started feeling the consequences of unchecked migration.

>After all, Texans love giving state officials all their money while their own disaster prevention systems go unfunded.
Maybe we'd have more money to put into disaster prevention if we weren't dealing with 11 million illegals.

>>1419944
I assure you your average Bible follower is far better off overall than the average liberal

>>1420209
>Maybe we'd have more money to put into disaster prevention if we weren't dealing with 11 million illegals.
Actually you'd have money if you didn't reject it from the Biden admin.
>https://www.latintimes.com/flooded-texas-county-turned-down-funds-warning-system-biden-admin-2021-we-dont-want-bought-586628

You retards literally complain about how much money migrants waste, reject it when dems try to help you, then keep electing PROVEN CORRUPT OFFICIALS who are using this as an excuse to steal from you simply because they tell you they're the only ones who can solve a problem they exaggerate and encourage.

>>1420211
Oh yeah just take money from the guy that's currently ass-raping you at the border. Gee thanks, Biden. While were at it why don't you just go back in time and tell Hitler to give FDR a fat paycheck to call off Normandy?

>>1420211
oh no, you made a reasonable fact based argument
Too bad it has no place with all the other posts made by one schizo shill who thinks their delusions and random shill talking points are real
I guess we just have to accept shill lies about Biden deliberately killing the texan girls and personally letting immigrants to peoples houses

>>1420214
Trump is currently ass raping the underage survivors of the Kerr County flood!?
What will that pedophile do unless we arrest him?
KILL ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS FOR ENPOWERING PEDOPHILES

>>1420214
>We can't even fund our own safety because of how much the immigrants are costing us
>Oh well here's some funding-
>I DON'T WANT TO ACTUALLY HAVE SAFETY, I WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

>>1420214
So what you're saying is, you'd rather even more money go to the border than, you know, actually address the problems you're saying the border is creating.

>>1420218
Does it not make more sense to address the cause of a problem rather than the symptoms of it?

>>1420220
Well, let's see.
>Don't accept the money
>Still have the border problem (the money doesn't exactly get redirected there), still have the issue
>Lose dozens of kids to floods who could've been saved if you had a prevention system

>Accept the money
>Nothing happens regarding the border
>Don't lose dozens of kids to flooding

Seems like there's a better option here that wasn't taken. Very brave of you to sacrifice all those little girls for the sake of making a point though.

>>1420216
Trump controls the weather? How was that his fault?

>>1420217
Motherfucker, you were raping us over at the border and then want to get upset when we won't take a $20 bill from you? Get fucked. We'd be better off without you. Sure as hell enforce our borders better without your interference.

>>1420218
Me personally I'm saying I'd rather spit in your fucking face than take a dime from you. Especially when this offer was made while Biden was being retarded with our security, as if that somehow makes up for it.

But don't take my word for it, your own article quotes how I feel:
>At an April 2022 meeting, one citizen called the White House a "criminal treasonous communist government," urging the county to reject the money altogether. Others echoed that sentiment, saying they didn't want the federal government's help.

>"We don't want to be bought by the federal government, thank you very much," a resident said. "We'd like the federal government to stay out of Kerr County and their money."

God damn right.

>>1420226
>Trump controls the weather? How was that his fault?
He literally fired the guy at the NWS who would have prevented the flooding and replaced him with a crony.
Have you not been following the news lately ?
Please try to keep up

>>1420226
>Get fucked. We'd be better off without you
And how'd that work out for Camp Mystic huh? Amazing work sticking to your guns and rejecting a system that could've stopped 20+ little girls from drowning. Very brave of you.

>>1420156
>>1420159
Holy that other anon mercilessly destroyed you.

>>1420218
>>1420217
>>1420216
Oh by the way that reminds me when Trump tried to help you degenerates in California with your fire situation, had to resort to fighting fires with soy milk, and you still told him to fuck off.

What? You didn't care about the lives and property lost back then. Too proud to ask for help from Orange Man even though it might save lives?

I guess it's only okay when you do it.

>>1420227
He didn't replace the fired workers with anyone, which was the point. He's trying to downsize the entire government.

>>1420228
>Amazing work sticking to your guns and rejecting a system that could've stopped 20+ little girls from drowning.
A system that couldn't even save the richest part of Los Angeles from burning to a crisp? lol okay Anon.

Leaders aren't elected to back down on positions the moment there's a lull in support and interest. Stay the course. Opinions will correct back to the previous trends when some other issue grabs everyone's attention.

>>1420231
>>I guess it's only okay when you do it.
Unironically yes

Trump offered a shitty nonworking solution
People told him it wouldn't work
He forced it on California anyway
It didn't work
You're still running victory laps about Trump actively hurting California by forcing them to do useless shit.

as opposed to

Biden offers to help Kerr County
Kerr County knew it would work and was actively asking for that system
Kerr County refused due to partisan delusions
Biden didn't force them
It would've worked and saved lives
Now you're actively trying to blame the deaths on Biden because he didn't force them to accept the money

You're going to be unable to tell the difference between those two scenarios because you're literally a brainrotted shill.

>>1420231
>>1420235
You fucking retard. Trump literally wasted an entire reservoir of water; it didn't go to the fires. It never could've gone to the fires. Hell, California had to scramble to stop him from causing flooding. Trump's intervention accomplished literally nothing because he never checked to make sure the water he was dumping even had a route to the (already under control at that point) fires; in fact, he actively harmed them by wasting water meant for drought season by dumping it into the fucking ocean.

>>1420247
>by dumping it into the fucking ocean.
Actually he dumped it into a dried up lake bed, but you are otherwise correct. They had to scramble to get the valves shut cause shit was gonna destroy a bunch of farms.

>>1419861 (OP)
You sound incredibly angry, which makes me incredibly happy because you're probably a bad person and therefore should be miserable.

Donald Trump is The Antichrist.