>>115256598>>115256497Literally nobody wants unchecked immigration, is the thing. The problem is, the current immigration system is broken. It's under-funded, under-managed, corrupt, and over-complicated. The democrats want a manageable system. The republicans want NO system (except for their rich friends).
Now let's get down to brass tacks: Functionally, logistically, it's impossible to stop immigration entirely. With the United States as a commercial and logistical travel hub for the entire planet, you literally cannot stop people coming into the country from basically anywhere. Cannot be done. When republicans say they want to clamp down on immigration, what they're *really* saying is they want to keep the focus on the people who make the attempt, and off the companies that take advantage of inexpensive labor, because an illegal immigrant is a desperate person who will care more about their survival than of human rights violations.
>Especially when my cousin who lost his legs can't get his medication.It's the republicans, and in turn, their special interest groups who force that false dichotomy onto you. Because the fact is, there's enough money in this country to go around. We can care for immigrants AND get vets the medicine they need. But we don't, because the poorer we keep the general population, the more they're only vested in their own interests as opposed to those of the collective, and the more likely they are to fight *with their fellow impoverished* over them, as opposed to the real threat, which are the ultra-wealthy who make the laws to keep the poors poor.
Walmart, for example, employs nearly three million people as of last year. They also pay next to zero taxes. More than half of those employees rely on some form of state assistance for food, medical, or shelter. So who's really benefiting off the state in that case; the employees who need to survive, or the company who can leverage state welfare to bolster their bottom line?
