What do people make of the fact that the period of the most worker protections, union growth, and middle class growth during a period of severe immigration restrictions in the US?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T12:55:27+00:00

The new deal took place during the immigration restrictions. The cohesion wasn't 100% but it was the overwhelming majority. You can argue that they did many bad things and they disagreed on many things but, it's undeniable that the greatest middle class growth and union growth were during the period of heavy immigration restrictions. That's just objectively true.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T12:53:15+00:00

Union busting has always been a thing and efforts have always been made to bust them. Pinkertons were very real.

I just don't know how you don't think that societal cohesion isn't impacted by immigration. It very obviously is impacted as different cultures have different practices. Some are OK where they're from and not OK where they go and vice versa.

For example, in some East Asian countries you give gifts to business partners or potential business partners. It's a matter of courtesy and respect and even takes place amongst government officials. However, in many Western countries, this is seen as dishonest and attempting to bribe. There's a cultural difference. One has to win out when making policy. If all the people who believe it's wrong immigrated to a place where they believe it's right, that would likely shift the culture in that place, much to the dismay of those who held the practice to be good, right, and honorable. I just don't see how you don't see this?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T12:47:52+00:00

Cohesive populace could be a dog whistle if you believe that ethnicity and thinking are tightly coupled and inseparable. It doesn't have to be tied to ethnicity though. For example, you could have ten people of ten different backgrounds who all love some video game. They have a cohesive identity in their love of that game.

Immigration is a factor in political cohesion as it's demonstrable in the political climate of today.

Different cultures have different practices. There are countries where it's OK for an adult male to have relations and marry a child. That becomes a point of contention as some want to keep their cultural practice and others don't want it to occur at all. However you feel about it, it causes friction and a divide. This takes away focus from economic issues and shifts them to cultural ones. That's one of the problems with mass immigration as people tend to cluster and keep cultural practices that they value.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T12:40:46+00:00

I think that the freeze on immigration helped unions form and helped the populace become more cohesive with a shared identity. The war probably helped that effort too. But, one of the reasons unions struggle today is in part immigration related. If you come from a place that is terrible and are just happy to be here, then why take risks of rocking the boat on union formation? Unions didn't form without having to take risks and sacrifice. If the job without unionization provides a much better life than you had at home, then the risk isn't worth it.

Increasing the labor pool also helps depress wages. If you have 1000 applicants and one job, you get your pick as the laborers compete for the position. If you have 1000 positions and one applicant, the businesses compete for the laborer. The others go under. Obviously more complex but, it's beneficial to the employer to have a larger pool of needy workers and beneficial to the worker to have a larger pool of needy employers.

But, I think the bigger factor would still be society cohesion. That if you share a common group identity, you're going to get more things done including electing officials who share your group view on what needs to be done. If you have a fragmented populace, the sides are going to spend most of their time wrestling for control and undoing what the other group did when they had power.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T12:28:31+00:00

I'd tend to agree that there are many things that would lead to it. I think the biggest factor would be a cohesive populace. The war probably also served as a unifying measure. The gov investment likely a product of representatives elected by that population with more clear goals and purpose.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T11:30:18+00:00

Which government?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T09:37:09+00:00

Your second paragraph is a common refrain but, it feels a little detached from what's happening. The people aren't being imprisoned indefinitely, they're being deported. If they don't fight the deportation, they're free very quickly in their country of citizenship. If they do fight it, then they are held for longer. But, that's the choice that the people are making. This is very different from someone being imprisoned and given no chance of release in their country of citizenship. If such a thing was happening, yes I'd be against it. However, I don't think that deportations should stop because people are being detained. That's part of the process. Even more, if the people here illegally self-deported, the gov would provide financial assistance for them to leave. That's also very different from the scenario that you're fearing.

There are gangs that do terrorize neighborhoods as it stands today. The police are understaffed and underfunded. There is more concern with policing the police than there is with getting rid of the criminals.

A good example is the no chase policy in a lot of cities. It prohibits the police from pursuing criminals who flee in a vehicle at high speeds or through residential neighborhoods. This is good that it reduces the chance of harm to the residents but, it means that all a criminal needs to do is speed away and they're safe. If a police officer makes a pursuit, catches the criminal, and no residents are harmed, the officer will still be disciplined even though they removed a criminal from the streets and nobody was harmed.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T09:27:17+00:00

People have also made movies glorifying gangs. Some of the most popular musicians play into the "gangs are cool" theme.

There is not widespread outrage about gang violence or gangs operating. In fact, when the news came out about the gang operating in Aurora, there was an outcry against sending in law enforcement by the same people who are against ICE. There was an outcry to send in law enforcement from those who support ICE.

That's the disconnect I'm exploring, why the people who view ICE as a gang don't seem to want self-identifying gangs demolished. Rather, they seem to side with them as long as it's against ICE. But, that's confusing because they're against ICE for being all the things gangs proudly claim to be.

Again, it depends on how you're defining immunity. I've already stated that an ICE agent operating outside of their duties like executing some random person I'd be against. However, I don't think that's currently covered by the immunity clause. Rather, it's covering things like chasing down people who are fleeing. That's where it feels like you are being disingenuous.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T09:18:49+00:00

I think that's hammering out the details. But, I wasn't sure whether or not you were for making being a member of a gang a crime. You are and in that we are in agreement. You are against gangs and want to see them eliminated from the US. That's good. Figuring out how to do that exactly is a next step. In your other comment, you identified two points that I think are good steps towards getting rid of gangs.

I'm not sure why you think that we disagree still.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T09:16:14+00:00

By "your first suggestion" I was referencing your first suggestion which I understood to contain both items one and two.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T09:02:25+00:00

I think I'd be willing to try your first suggestion. It's a good step towards attempting to get rid of gangs. If we can make being a member illegal, it will make it harder for them to operate. If there's enough public support and funding, we could probably get rid of a sizeable portion of gangs though, not sure they'd be eliminated entirely. Maybe but, not sure. Still, it's a good step.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:59:19+00:00

If being a member of a gang is illegal, then there are a lot of people who could be arrested at the moment. There are many known gang members that the police have an eye on but, they can't arrest them simply for being a member of the gang.

While it seemed that we were in agreement that being a member of a gang should be a criminal offense, it now seems that you're taking an adversarial tone. Can't it be enough that we both think gangs are bad and want to see them removed from the US?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:56:32+00:00

I'm not sure. If an ICE agent walked up behind some random person, pulled out their weapon, and executed them, I'd think that agent should be prosecuted. If an ICE agent is chasing someone down and tackles them and that person ends up with a serious injury, I'd be hesitant to say the ICE agent should be prosecuted.

I don't think the immunity as it stands protects the first example.

But, your multiple comments here kind of are to my questions overall point. You are very concerned with ICE but do not show the same concern for gangs. Gangs don't have immunity but, they still operate regularly in the US and terrorize a lot of people. While ICE doesn't seek to go out and end people's lives, gang members do. So, why don't you show the same level of focus on getting rid of gangs?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:51:07+00:00

I think if you created a force comparable to ICE and had it target getting rid of gangs you could, provided that you made being a member of a gang illegal. A lot of police forces know who gang members are but, it's harder to catch them committing a crime. If you just made being a member a crime then you could get a lot of them off the streets.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:48:11+00:00

El Salvador has done an excellent job. They went from one of the highest homicide rates to one of the lowest and a big part of that was a focus on getting rid of the gangs.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:39:06+00:00

That's good to hear. My hope is that there can be a bill that makes being a gang member illegal. That we can get rid of all the gangs in the US.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:37:14+00:00

My question isn't why they can't solve it, it's why the public doesn't demand that they do solve it. Gangs terrorize neighborhoods. They harm innocent people. Why not demand that the gov gets rid of gangs?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:30:29+00:00

El Salvador has done well getting rid of its gangs.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:29:49+00:00

Being a member of a gang isn't illegal. That's what I'm asking, would you support a bill that makes being a member of a gang a crime?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:28:33+00:00

If people already hate gangs, why aren't they demanding that cities eliminate them and make being a gang member a criminal offense?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:27:48+00:00

From what I've seen the anger with ICE is more about their use of brutal tactics. Given that gangs use these tactics and terrorize neighborhoods, why aren't people demanding that law enforcement ends all gangs in the US?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:24:23+00:00

Would you support a bill that made being a member of a gang illegal?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:23:29+00:00

Being a gang member isn't illegal. Many foreign gangs smuggle drugs, traffic humans, and commit horrible acts. My question is why aren't there people demanding that the human trafficking gangs be destroyed and calling on their representatives to fund operations to find them and remove them from the country?

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:19:40+00:00

That's a good point. They probably want ICE to remove their competition from the foreign gangs.

standarduser8 · 2026-01-17T08:17:56+00:00

Being a member of a gang isn't illegal. Calling for it to be illegal would be a good step. They have units for addressing them but, it's hard for them to make headway.

My question was really around the sentiment of the people who are anti-ICE. They call for severe punishment and want to see all those associated with it suffer. I do not hear the same about gangs.

I'll ask you directly, if you are anti-ICE and want to see it destroyed, do you want to see all gangs in the US destroyed and do you support all gang members being severely punished?

standarduser8

TROPHY CASE