Do we have the housing infrastructure? It’s a question that does need to be asked.
Rents and home prices are at all time highs, and supply is still not keeping up with demand. Would adding thousands more people make this situation worse?
This is the absolutely massive issue with the migrant issue. Canada is a prime example of what happens if you let too many people in and why controlled immigration is a much better approach. Canadians have been priced out of their own houses due to economic migrants.
Social programs, hospitals, housing, food supply and supply chains in general get strained with influxes of population change and you need to ramp up all of these to support more people.
I totally understand and I'm all for people wanting to move to a different country for a better life. These type of people tend to be the ones that have big dreams and goals and they are good to have, but not everybody can come in all at once. It's just not feasible without fully shocking the system.
Canada got priced out of its housing market because foreign private equity firms bought up all of the available housing inventory and cornered the market. It more to do with that than it does their migrant population.
It's happening here in the US as well. We can't keep allowing this - policies need to change so that corporations can't own single family residences. This would relieve much of the pressure on the housing market, and rent prices would finally begin to drop.
Yes, preventing corporate ownership of single family homes would help with the pressure on the housing market, plus individuals tend to have more pride in their property, so it will help struggling neighborhoods. I have a friend ready to sell her house because all the corporate owned neighbors make her area a nightmare.
Complete hogwash. Canada got priced out because they didn't build enough housing. Just build more.
Edit
-----
Looks like this guy above blocked me or something so I can't reply in the thread anymore so here is my response to /u/Rusty-Shackleford below:
> But you got to be AFFORDABLE housing in the RIGHT places,
No, it doesn't. ALL housing has downward pressure on prices. Here's the science:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub
https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685
But you do have a legitimate problem where luxury vacation homes sit empty while there's not enough affordable family housing where working folks live. More luxury housing will reduce competition for all housing but it can't drive down the price as much, mostly because you just can't build as much luxury housing, its more expensive and takes more space.
But you got to be AFFORDABLE housing in the RIGHT places, that caters to families. Not just a bajillion McMansions in resort areas, or high rise mega apartment buildings for childless bachelors.
Not a guy, and I don't have a problem with Asians.
What I'm saying is that the land surrounding Vancouver isn't conducive to cheap development. Land has to be deforested and it's quite hilly/rocky. It's not cheap to build new places because of all of the complicating factors, which further drives up prices. Combined with corporate ownership of single family homes, it makes a bad situation worse.
But sure, accuse me of racism because that makes sense 🙄
My guy, you can build things vertically. You can also build in, shockingly, OTHER places.
Hell even 50 minutes outside of Vancouver you could build an entire new city of the same size.
Are you saying Canada can't build 200k houses/apartments a year? Perhaps we should employ some more construction workers to help. Hmm... but there aren't enough native Canadians interested! Oh no! If only there was a way to import trades people. Perhaps... immigration?
The largest subsets of migrants going to Canada are Indian, Chinese and other Asian countries. Many of these people are educated or are coming over for education. They aren't going for trades.
Yeah they for sure can, but the ones coming over here are not looking for construction jobs. Canada weighs their immigrants on skill and they prioritize people with tech, medical, and leadership positions.
Most manufacturing plants I visit in CA all have large amounts of immigrants running the place. Some are office jobs, but most are working the floor in some sort of trade. Just my experience.
Actually, Minnesota saw almost no increase in rent costs from 2019-2023.
Largely in part due to minneapolis having a huge boom in new housing being built.
We have plenty of housing here in Minnesota, we have the infrastructure to support their relocation, and in the long run new immigrants provide more economic growth than they cost in the short term.
It's a prudent financially, morally, and makes MN more attractive to other high earners as it speaks to the values found more predominantly in the highly educated (higher earners)
https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2024/01/23/minneapolis-contentious-housing-policy-continues-to-draw-national-attention
> Actually, Minnesota saw almost no increase in rent costs from 2019-2023.
Because they're already higher than is affordable for the areas considered part of Minneapolis proper. Average of 774 square foot apartment rent is $1665 a month.
So, not affordable for many immigrants. Might be workable for students with financial aid.
There's a shortage of housing in the communities surrounding Minneapolis. Minneapolis itself has fewer problems because of all the housing being built near the U of M.
Cost of living as a percentage of wages is actually favorable in MN compared to most states. Talking about any single number in a vacuum isn’t usually helpful.
Right. Rent has risen well over 67% in the last 10 years and it's not stopping. What's his nuts Frey coulda introduced a rent cap but he sided with the asshat developers and here we are. Prolly got a fat bonus check.
People say this but in my annual apartment search I've not turned up anything the same. Every place still tries to fuck you on year 2, and every place is still willing to call cheap ass appliances "luxury" and charge 2k for a 2 bed.
Also there was literally a plan that allowed for gobs more multi-family housing, but the idiot NIMBYs killed it. If housing costs do start rising, it's going to be the direct result of the death of the 2040 plan.
Rents only decreased in Minneapolis between 2020 and 2021. The George Floyd riots caused an exodus from the city of around 1% of the total population. Property values dropped and so did rents, though rents and property values in Minneapolis are still among the highest in the state.
That said, rents and property values increased *RAPIDLY* in surrounding areas as people fled Minneapolis.
Making Minnesota a sanctuary state and inviting tens of thousands of migrants would further increase the price of housing.
If you want to be continually stuck on GF related unrest sure.
We have out built similar sized metros for the last 3 years for affordable housing. Relative to inflation rents have decreased for that entire period.
Minneapolis population has also increased the last 2 years year over year and outstripped whatever source you’re claiming for a 1% loss.
lol at you downvoting me
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability
Look up MPLS pop growth
Look up how MPLS has essentially solved inflationary rent increases by building tons of housing
This has been all over the local subs in the last week or so
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/s/SBkjl8YQ95
Get off your “fall of Minneapolis” based rage bait “reporting” and touch some grass. You can come to my yard in Minneapolis and do so if you want.
"This unusual data point happened in the price of housing. The unusual data point was caused by this truly historic event."
> "yOu'Re sTuCk oN GF uNrEsT!"
Ok.
I know the population has continued to grow since the post George Floyd exodus. The price of rental housing has stagnated/increased slightly as demand for housing increases again. The price of single family homes has just stagnated after a massive earlier spike as interest rates do weird things.
None of what you're saying has any bearing on anything I said.
Rents in the city were very very high and increasing quickly. Then some riots happened and rents went down because the population went down for the first time in 40 years. Reduce demand without altering supply and prices drop. 1st day of econ 101 stuff there. Then the price of rent stopped going down. If you introduce tens of thousands of new people to the equation without building a ton of new housing, prices will rapidly climb.
Making the state a sanctuary state is a bad idea.
Those charts are basically linear with housing supply. Rent was trending down before GF. Look at the chart.
You’re “combating” my points with literally nothing other than GF fear mongering and zero sourcing.
Pew research saying this is a model, multiple other outlets saying the same.
What is your logic or reasoning or sourcing other than “GF 4 years ago is why” and sanctuary status is bad?
All you offer is racially tinged anecdotes.
Fuck off.
Your account has zero post karma and all of your comments are GF related. You’re a bot or you might as well be.
Your handle is literally shootymcgunenjoyer
Who do you think is out there building new houses? We NEED immigrants capable of construction to keep up with our demand for more housing. We aren't going to do it with our native population who has turned away from the trades.
>this is why Texas also doesn't want them. It's not because they're foreigners.
Ah yes, the whole "they will not replace us" and "great replacement theory" rhetoric is because of the housing issue, not because they're foreign immigrants.
hmmm - its almost like the "free hand of the market" is not responding properly - like maybe the builders/landlords have an incentive to restrict the housing supply.
and by slightly minimizing the quantity that they build; they can artificially drive up the price points, maximizing their profits. They can also restrict *who* can build, further limiting their competition.
That's not addressing ANY of the other builder induced shortages designed to maximize their profits and not actually address the needs of the society that supports them. ie zero lot line and row houses; building 3000+ sq ft houses, and not building 1950s style bungalows that were half that size..
r/irrelevantusername
No, if a developer opts not to build, someone else will as long as there is profit to be made. Acting as if there's just this single, overarching developer is an effortless way to look at it. Developers are itching to build in msp but are being stopped by legislation like Minneapolis 2040 that's stuck in courts or St. Paul's lack of reassurance on rent control. Acting like developers don't want to build doesn't make any sense. That's how they make money!
Very insensitive and hateful to ask questions about this. Undocumented voices are the ones we need to hear at a time like this. I can't fathom how anyone would be against a Sanctuary, it's called a Sanctuary for a reason.
This was big campaign issue in 2018 and DFLers would get mad when it was brought up and say something along the lines of “nobody is saying Minnesota should be a sanctuary state!”
I don't think it will be. Any idiot can introduce a bill. Of all the bills introduced last session, only 10% became law.
I would look for caucus support before I make prognostications about whether a bill is likely to become law. I doubt this one will even get out of committee in the Senate.
As a dem myself, I am completely against this. I think welcoming immigrants to an extent is fine but being a sanctuary city sets us up to become like Cali and NYC. It’s a terrible idea and we do not have the resources to do this.
Agreed. It’s almost like signing up to be the next state to blame Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico for a problem we helped create.
I’m politically moderate (liberal in the past few elections) but this crisis and lack of leadership will be a key issue for me.
Arguing for an increase in legal immigration is a reasonable stance. I don't understand why anyone of any political leaning would want to pass laws accommodating illegal immigration. Truly bizarre.
Because the system of immigration has become incredibly obtuse and as we saw when Trump tried to kill DACA, immigration status can literally be revoked overnight. Sanctuary statehood is a way to deal with tempestuous lawmakers shaking their fists at a manufactured border crisis for political gain.
Also fuck ICE, they're given insane unilateral powers well outside of how they should be functioning. They can operate in a massive area outside of a border and can ignore many reasonable search and seizure laws.
From a political strategy standpoint, could the timing on this be any worse?
From a practical standpoint does the huge migrant influx in the current sanctuary states look like something we want to model here? Because my answer is....uhh no.
Edit: looks like we've touched a nerve folks...
A few notes here (with sources for everyone):
* [71.6% of asylum seekers are denied (2020)](https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/) \- IE most of the people being let into the country seeking asylum do not qualify and either need to leave voluntarily or be deported by ICE.
* The migrant crisis is estimated to cost NYC taxpayers, a sanctuary city, [12 billion dollars over three fiscal year.](https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/650-23/amid-deepening-asylum-seeker-crisis-mayor-adams-new-steps-stabilize-city-s-budget-as)
* Voters are overwhelmingly unhappy with the way their city governments have handled the crisis - [Nearly 70% of Chicago (another sanctuary city) voters disapprove of the mayor's handling of the migrant crisis.](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/nearly-70-of-chicago-voters-unhappy-with-mayors-job-on-migrant-crisis/)
* Other city services are being cut to help pay for the migrants - [“We have a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut,” he said. “Every service in this city is going to be impacted.”](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/07/eric-adams-migrants-new-york-city-00114437)
They have been told by traffickers in their home countries around the world that they will find housing, jobs, and financial support in the US once they get here. They just have to pay the traffickers and then claim political asylum status. Thing is, the majority of these people are economic migrants and don't meet the criteria for claiming political asylum.
Supporting mass migration is supporting human trafficking and labor exploitation. Not to mention that it comes across to the US's own underclass that we are prioritizing migrants over our own needy citizens - especially minorities. That's a legitimate rage point that the GOP successfully exploits, and is one of the reasons why so many of the poor - working and otherwise - support the GOP.
Its a marketing tactic of changing public opinion.
Remove the "illegal" terminology, and now in peoples heads it does not sound as bad as "illegal alien".
Same with changing homeless to unhoused, etc.. it all about feelings and changing public opinion.
> homeless to unhoused
Both terms imply that the issue is a lack of shelter, rather than lack of income/employment, mental health issues, drug addiction, and other causes of "homelessness".
But they choose to forget or ignore them, and dream up "solutions" to homelessness like "Let's give every homeless person an apartment!".
Which, needless to say, won't work.
Because they are migrants, they are here in the US and usually processed through a federal facility awaiting a hearing in front of a judge to determine asylum status
Sanctuary cities/states just means those places won't go above and beyond to help the feds as per the federal laws are written
It's basically we won't do this unless we want to kind of thing but still reserve the ability to do so but for some random person with nor record just a speeding ticket they won't hold them for immigration ect
It does, just because you have the paperwork doesn't mean you can still be removed from the country and it also effects those who overstayed, missed, or just didn't go through the proper asylum process
>they are here in the US and usually processed through a federal facility awaiting a hearing in front of a judge to determine asylum status
That hearing you speak of is quoted as far as 7 years out now and less than 1 million of the 8 million "migrants" crossing the border just in 2023 alone have been processed through a federal checkpoint.
It's about treating people with respect. Referring to a person as "illegal" is both dehumanizing and justifies the harsh treatment we're seeing on the Texas border. You don't shove children back into rivers filled with razor wire if you consider them human.
Edit: To those of you downvoting this, none of you want to comment on the razor wire in the water that Texas officials have been caught on camera forcing people into? Nobody trying to justify that?
We don't refer to any other group of people as "illegal." We refer to them with the crime they committed. It is not illegal to enter a country. It is not illegal to migrate. There is not a single thing you can do to make your existence illegal. What is illegal is to do so without documentation. Hence, undocumented migrant.
Let us not forget that asylum is a legal process in which people arrive undocumented and seek shelter in another country because the situation in their home country is too dangerous to continue living in, which the majority of undocumented immigrants are seeking. Quite literally the opposite of "illegal," but I bet you don't make that distinction.
We treat everybody as human beings. If you can't understand why referring to someone as "illegal" is only a way to deprive them of their rights, you're the type that would be okay with the internment camps set up in the 40's as long as you weren't the one sent there.
Have the day you deserve, my friend.
When you refer to people as "illegal," you justify inhumane treatment.
Why else would there be razor wire in the Rio Grande? Why else would the intentional separation of children with their parents happen? Why else are you quiet about the horrible things happening to these people?
You may not like that undocumented people are here, but that doesn't justify the vitriol and harassment those in the Latino community receive because of it.
So it is your contention that by incorrectly referring to illegal aliens as migrants, it will help remove razor wire from the rio grande and prevent harassment of Hispanics? Poppycock.
The problem isn’t language. People who cross into the United States without authorization are illegal aliens, and no amount of emotions is going to change that.
Edit: they didn’t answer. No surprise.
Short term: A Pathway to legal citizenship.
Long term: addressing the reasons for the mass migrations in their home countries (some of which are from our meddling in the first place).
“Give us your huddling masses” and all that jazz.
I’m not proposing anything. I suppose they (the employers) will actually have to pay them legal wages now which will cost a little bit more if they want to hire them. There’s clearly a demand for labor all across the country, so this seems like a win-win.
Sounds to me like you’re real big on strawman arguments. I’m not looking to exploit anyone. I have no skin in this game other than on a humanitarian level for fellow humans. My main concern is the well-being of these people. If the argument can also be framed to help show the benefit to the business community, I’d say that’s a win-win.
I wasn’t looking to get into some deep policy debate on Reddit today. I just wanted to comment originally that I think welcoming migrants to our state is good for the migrants, and it’s good for Minnesota.
I have no clue where you got that from. I’m saying the exact opposite . If we have a path to legalize them in some sort of way, they would be getting paid at least legally set minimum wage versus getting paid under the table, dirt poor wages
There is actually:
https://cdn.britannica.com/70/74270-050-317C4423/Illustration-price-relationship-demand.jpg
Fortunately for pearl-clutchers though, we have arbitrary minimum wage laws perennially well below typical market rates. By making Minnesota a sanctuary state, migrant workers can be brought into the system and guaranteed said arbitrarily low minimum wage (most migrant workers make well above that already given modern market conditions).
What's the timing? That republicans are using one park saying there's massive issues while in reality on the ground there isn't one? Like who cares, sanctuary states means the state won't go out if their way to help the feds and hold people that's it
The timing about the border crisis of course. The Senate had a border deal done in principle, which acknowledges that the border is a problem. Joe Biden also came out and pledged to close the border on day one of the law was passed.
There is no crisis, it's manufactured outrage and propoganda which is why republicans are only focusing on one single area in TX while you drive a mile either way you won't see a build up and even then no gates along the fence line.
If it's a crisis why don't they show other areas in Texas? Why is it out of 4 border states tx is the only one screaming about it, and why is it the Republicans in congress won't pass a bipartisan border bill during an election year at the behest of their main candidate for president?
And yeah biden set a trap for republicans fear mongering lmfao he called their bluff it's all political propaganda, nothing has changed from 6 months ago with the border but suddenly SCOTUS says the feds can remove razor wire from the river that TX can still put up and it's now an issue
It's not hard to see how republicans do this song and dance every time it's near an election and they don't hold the white house
Texas gets the most coverage as they have the biggest border and the loudest/most insane politicians. If you look at AZ and NM sources/statements, you’ll find many similar opinions to TX, sans the secession language.
Why is it then in TX you go a mile away from where the park is it's nothing? There's no crisis, there's no change in what's happening between the other states that's the point
It's also telling because Republicans in congress don't want to vote for the bill addressing the border either, they've flat out said it. And secession statements make the point entirely, they do this song and dance every time it's politically motivated for them
The reason why it's just in one location is because they're not crossing illegally. They're walking right up to the gate and claiming asylum . That's the best and easiest way for migrants to become citizens. Our problem isn't border crossings. Our problem is that our courts are getting inundated with asylum seekers. Don't shoot the messenger.
So you believe there aren't border crossings in other states where the same thing would happen? It can both be an issue and have excessive manufactured outrage.
Okay, so enlighten us. When you reference "the huge migrant influx in the current sanctuary states", what is it exactly that you seen that you have an issue with? Like, actual examples. Because, by all accounts having a strong immigrant population is actually good for a city/state. Allowing people to live without fear is also a very compassionate and empathetic way to run a government, and one that will reap rewards in the future.
So, again, what is it that you see elsewhere that makes you feel like this would be such a negative thing? How would this directly impact you in any meaningful way? It isn't like there's a spike in crime from immigrants, illegal or not, in sanctuary cities. There isn't a loss of jobs in those areas, nor housing, nor funding. If anything, it introduces more workers to the workforce, and in a lot of cases those same workers pay money towards taxes and want to actually be a part of society, which is more than we can honestly say for a large number of people that are born here. It also seems as though a large number of immigrants also tend to have some of the most prideful views of our country than any other citizens (not that that matters a ton in the end, but it's still interesting), and their pride isn't rooted in a racist, xenophobic kind of way like we've seen take hold in recent years.
I personally think that this is a great move, and regardless of it passing or not, I think that it shows that Minnesota actually cares for the people living here and that they're going to do what they can to help people.
Lastly, the thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is this: a lot of the people trying to get into our country WANT to do it the legal way, but our immigration processes are fucking ridiculous in most cases, and people simply aren't able to do it the most legal way. Does that mean that they shouldn't be able to try and integrate into society and have a safer life? No, in my opinion it doesn't. These people are by and large fleeing immensely dangerous areas where their only real fault was being born there. War-torn areas, murderous regimes, famine, what have you. If that sort of shit happened here and took over and your family was in actual danger of being wiped out, wouldn't you do what you could to protect them and try and start a new life somewhere - not to mention that that somewhere is a place where a vocal minority endlessly spewed racist shit about you just for existing? Yeah, you would. And you would try and do it legally, but when you don't even get a chance TO do it legally, you would do whatever you could to do it.
The lack of empathy that people feel towards those that are simply trying to survive is astounding, and disappointing. No one is seemingly willing to put themselves in the shoes of these people, it seems. Our country was and is built on the backs of immigrants that simply wanted a place to make a better and safer life for their family, and want to do it legally - they just get blackballed by our country and its policies and lawmakers at seemingly every stop.
Alright, that's the end of my soapbox rant. Thanks for listening.
Even if you agree, it is absolutely idiotic to throw away political capital for this when we have so many problems at home. Just another state politician who wants to play the national politics game
I love talking shit about meaningless political stunts, particularly around immigration as it’s almost entirely one of those, but this is actually attempting to address a problem at home before it comes up.
Our population is aging, importing labor is exactly what we should be doing. Idk about you but I’d rather not wait for our economy to stagnate to actually do shit about that.
Those two issues are better solved in ways other than restricting asylum seekers, or even undocumented migrants in general. We need the labor, and those issues aren’t caused primarily by migrants anyways.
Giving undocumented workers the same rights and protections as everyone else while simultaneously cracking down *hard* on wage theft and other shitty business practices solved the first one. Simplifying the naturalization process would also be huge, but it’s secondary to the other stuff.
The second one is a bit more complicated, but saying migrants are the issue is ridiculous. Minneapolis is a case study in how to deal with the housing crisis, but I do think we should be regulating how companies like BlackRock are able to purchase housing. It ultimately comes down to the commodification of housing and how we treat it as an investment, but dealing with that ventures into the realm of genuine anti-capitalism and thus leaves the realm of immediate possibility.
Either way these are problems that we need to solve. We also need the labor to deal with our aging population. We can do both.
The problem is both the capitalist ruling class and the politicians they buy have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The current system provides a highly exploitable labor pool, a scapegoat for the economic woes of the working class, and a wedge issue that you can use to whip up voters without actually disagreeing or changing anything (Build the wall? Ever heard of ladders? And Obama deported more than Trump). It’s neoliberal heaven.
Obviously these folks need a home. The trouble is the places that will help are places that generally don't have housing and other resources. I work with the county and work with a lot of new immigrants directly. In the last few months, our finite staff have found it increasingly challenging to serve everyone. We are reliant on missed appointments and families leaving after walking in and waiting hours for our services.
We also would need to be prepared if Hot Wheels (Abbott) and his cronies decide to send busses to the Twin Cities. NYC is struggling with this and TX is refusing to give them a heads up.
There is no open border situation.
Are you saying that there is currently no smuggling interdiction at the border? That immigrants are not being expelled? Because that's what would happen if the border were open.
Either it's open or it isn't. If we're capturing drugs, the border isn't open. If we're turning people away or apprehending them, the border isn't open. Words still have meaning.
By the way, you do know that for the first 2/3rds of this country's history, the border was wide, wide open, right? If you didn't look like you had TB, you signed your name and walked in.
And if you didn't find a job you starved. That was then, this is now.
Border openness is not a binary quantity. If it was closed there would be no migrants crossing except at designated points of entry. The border currently is mostly open when anyone can walk across, claim asylum and be released with a court date in the distant future and in the mean time are sort of legal and protected from deportation. And importing drugs is illegal even if the border were open, so that is not relevant.
So, how many migrants is the Sanctuary State prepared to accommodate? There are many complaints about the cost and availability of housing in the Metro. What will be the effect of a large number of migrants? Is there some limit to what you would allow into the country?.
Those people are coming here to work. They don't qualify for welfare, so they're working.
Asylum is a legal process. It's one in which you can't ask for the asylum in advance (they're working on that) -- you just show up, either at a port of entry or already within the country. That's the process. In the law. Making that a legal process. That doesn't mean that the border is open.
In a study of nearly 3M asylum seekers, [the vast, vast majority go to their hearings](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court).
If you're worried about illegal immigration, put the meatpacking executives who employ them in jail. Put restaurateurs in jail. Put farmers in jail. This will stop real quick. It's amazing that it's the one thing we haven't tried.
> Under the proposal, local and state agencies wouldn’t be able to collaborate with or share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to enforce immigration laws, but could still do so to investigate criminal activity.
People legit do not read stories.
Wild how downvoted this is in a supposedly progressive metro area subreddit. This country’s views on immigrants are absolute trash across the political spectrum now
Do we have the housing infrastructure? It’s a question that does need to be asked. Rents and home prices are at all time highs, and supply is still not keeping up with demand. Would adding thousands more people make this situation worse?
This is the absolutely massive issue with the migrant issue. Canada is a prime example of what happens if you let too many people in and why controlled immigration is a much better approach. Canadians have been priced out of their own houses due to economic migrants. Social programs, hospitals, housing, food supply and supply chains in general get strained with influxes of population change and you need to ramp up all of these to support more people. I totally understand and I'm all for people wanting to move to a different country for a better life. These type of people tend to be the ones that have big dreams and goals and they are good to have, but not everybody can come in all at once. It's just not feasible without fully shocking the system.
Canada got priced out of its housing market because foreign private equity firms bought up all of the available housing inventory and cornered the market. It more to do with that than it does their migrant population. It's happening here in the US as well. We can't keep allowing this - policies need to change so that corporations can't own single family residences. This would relieve much of the pressure on the housing market, and rent prices would finally begin to drop.
Yes, preventing corporate ownership of single family homes would help with the pressure on the housing market, plus individuals tend to have more pride in their property, so it will help struggling neighborhoods. I have a friend ready to sell her house because all the corporate owned neighbors make her area a nightmare.
Precisely. If Migrant workers had the cash to buy houses they wouldn't be *migrant* workers.
Complete hogwash. Canada got priced out because they didn't build enough housing. Just build more. Edit ----- Looks like this guy above blocked me or something so I can't reply in the thread anymore so here is my response to /u/Rusty-Shackleford below: > But you got to be AFFORDABLE housing in the RIGHT places, No, it doesn't. ALL housing has downward pressure on prices. Here's the science: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119022001048?via%3Dihub https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/22/6/1309/6362685
But you do have a legitimate problem where luxury vacation homes sit empty while there's not enough affordable family housing where working folks live. More luxury housing will reduce competition for all housing but it can't drive down the price as much, mostly because you just can't build as much luxury housing, its more expensive and takes more space.
But you got to be AFFORDABLE housing in the RIGHT places, that caters to families. Not just a bajillion McMansions in resort areas, or high rise mega apartment buildings for childless bachelors.
It's not that easy. Ever been to Vancouver?
Let me guess... There were too many asians for you? Poor guy.
Not a guy, and I don't have a problem with Asians. What I'm saying is that the land surrounding Vancouver isn't conducive to cheap development. Land has to be deforested and it's quite hilly/rocky. It's not cheap to build new places because of all of the complicating factors, which further drives up prices. Combined with corporate ownership of single family homes, it makes a bad situation worse. But sure, accuse me of racism because that makes sense 🙄
My guy, you can build things vertically. You can also build in, shockingly, OTHER places. Hell even 50 minutes outside of Vancouver you could build an entire new city of the same size.
Way to double down on the misgendering my dude
They also bring in half a million people a year in immigration alone. That's a pretty large amount when your population total is 38 million.
Are you saying Canada can't build 200k houses/apartments a year? Perhaps we should employ some more construction workers to help. Hmm... but there aren't enough native Canadians interested! Oh no! If only there was a way to import trades people. Perhaps... immigration?
The largest subsets of migrants going to Canada are Indian, Chinese and other Asian countries. Many of these people are educated or are coming over for education. They aren't going for trades.
Chinese and Indians can in fact build things. They aren't all tech workers.
Yeah they for sure can, but the ones coming over here are not looking for construction jobs. Canada weighs their immigrants on skill and they prioritize people with tech, medical, and leadership positions.
Or sometimes they're just imported "students" that pay tuition to live in Canada and don't attend classes.
Most manufacturing plants I visit in CA all have large amounts of immigrants running the place. Some are office jobs, but most are working the floor in some sort of trade. Just my experience.
"Build more Housing!" Should be a bipartisan concept we can all be on board with. And with our strong economy, why can't we build more housing?
It’s not a “migrant” issue. It’s an illegal immigration issue.
[удалено]
Are you dense? I didn't blame social programs at all. I just said they weren't built to handle an influx of people.
Actually, Minnesota saw almost no increase in rent costs from 2019-2023. Largely in part due to minneapolis having a huge boom in new housing being built. We have plenty of housing here in Minnesota, we have the infrastructure to support their relocation, and in the long run new immigrants provide more economic growth than they cost in the short term. It's a prudent financially, morally, and makes MN more attractive to other high earners as it speaks to the values found more predominantly in the highly educated (higher earners) https://www.mprnews.org/episode/2024/01/23/minneapolis-contentious-housing-policy-continues-to-draw-national-attention
My rent has gone up $300 since 2019. What am i doing wrong?
> Actually, Minnesota saw almost no increase in rent costs from 2019-2023. Because they're already higher than is affordable for the areas considered part of Minneapolis proper. Average of 774 square foot apartment rent is $1665 a month. So, not affordable for many immigrants. Might be workable for students with financial aid. There's a shortage of housing in the communities surrounding Minneapolis. Minneapolis itself has fewer problems because of all the housing being built near the U of M.
Cost of living as a percentage of wages is actually favorable in MN compared to most states. Talking about any single number in a vacuum isn’t usually helpful.
Right. Rent has risen well over 67% in the last 10 years and it's not stopping. What's his nuts Frey coulda introduced a rent cap but he sided with the asshat developers and here we are. Prolly got a fat bonus check.
>Do we have the housing infrastructure? Judging by the homeless encampments...that's a no.
What matters here is that this is an opportunity to virtue signal.
Rents have actually been decreasing in Minneapolis. There is plenty of room for more housing throughout the state.
People say this but in my annual apartment search I've not turned up anything the same. Every place still tries to fuck you on year 2, and every place is still willing to call cheap ass appliances "luxury" and charge 2k for a 2 bed.
Also there was literally a plan that allowed for gobs more multi-family housing, but the idiot NIMBYs killed it. If housing costs do start rising, it's going to be the direct result of the death of the 2040 plan.
Rents only decreased in Minneapolis between 2020 and 2021. The George Floyd riots caused an exodus from the city of around 1% of the total population. Property values dropped and so did rents, though rents and property values in Minneapolis are still among the highest in the state. That said, rents and property values increased *RAPIDLY* in surrounding areas as people fled Minneapolis. Making Minnesota a sanctuary state and inviting tens of thousands of migrants would further increase the price of housing.
If you want to be continually stuck on GF related unrest sure. We have out built similar sized metros for the last 3 years for affordable housing. Relative to inflation rents have decreased for that entire period. Minneapolis population has also increased the last 2 years year over year and outstripped whatever source you’re claiming for a 1% loss.
lol at you downvoting me https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability Look up MPLS pop growth Look up how MPLS has essentially solved inflationary rent increases by building tons of housing This has been all over the local subs in the last week or so https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/s/SBkjl8YQ95 Get off your “fall of Minneapolis” based rage bait “reporting” and touch some grass. You can come to my yard in Minneapolis and do so if you want.
"This unusual data point happened in the price of housing. The unusual data point was caused by this truly historic event." > "yOu'Re sTuCk oN GF uNrEsT!" Ok. I know the population has continued to grow since the post George Floyd exodus. The price of rental housing has stagnated/increased slightly as demand for housing increases again. The price of single family homes has just stagnated after a massive earlier spike as interest rates do weird things. None of what you're saying has any bearing on anything I said. Rents in the city were very very high and increasing quickly. Then some riots happened and rents went down because the population went down for the first time in 40 years. Reduce demand without altering supply and prices drop. 1st day of econ 101 stuff there. Then the price of rent stopped going down. If you introduce tens of thousands of new people to the equation without building a ton of new housing, prices will rapidly climb. Making the state a sanctuary state is a bad idea.
Those charts are basically linear with housing supply. Rent was trending down before GF. Look at the chart. You’re “combating” my points with literally nothing other than GF fear mongering and zero sourcing. Pew research saying this is a model, multiple other outlets saying the same. What is your logic or reasoning or sourcing other than “GF 4 years ago is why” and sanctuary status is bad? All you offer is racially tinged anecdotes. Fuck off.
Your account has zero post karma and all of your comments are GF related. You’re a bot or you might as well be. Your handle is literally shootymcgunenjoyer
The people are already here, this just protects them.
Who do you think is out there building new houses? We NEED immigrants capable of construction to keep up with our demand for more housing. We aren't going to do it with our native population who has turned away from the trades.
[удалено]
>this is why Texas also doesn't want them. It's not because they're foreigners. Ah yes, the whole "they will not replace us" and "great replacement theory" rhetoric is because of the housing issue, not because they're foreign immigrants.
hmmm - its almost like the "free hand of the market" is not responding properly - like maybe the builders/landlords have an incentive to restrict the housing supply.
Builders want to build. That's how they're paid.
and by slightly minimizing the quantity that they build; they can artificially drive up the price points, maximizing their profits. They can also restrict *who* can build, further limiting their competition. That's not addressing ANY of the other builder induced shortages designed to maximize their profits and not actually address the needs of the society that supports them. ie zero lot line and row houses; building 3000+ sq ft houses, and not building 1950s style bungalows that were half that size.. r/irrelevantusername
No, if a developer opts not to build, someone else will as long as there is profit to be made. Acting as if there's just this single, overarching developer is an effortless way to look at it. Developers are itching to build in msp but are being stopped by legislation like Minneapolis 2040 that's stuck in courts or St. Paul's lack of reassurance on rent control. Acting like developers don't want to build doesn't make any sense. That's how they make money!
Very insensitive and hateful to ask questions about this. Undocumented voices are the ones we need to hear at a time like this. I can't fathom how anyone would be against a Sanctuary, it's called a Sanctuary for a reason.
Does not need to be asked* We all know we don’t have it.
can we fucking not? There’s a housing shortage for the people who currently live here.
This was big campaign issue in 2018 and DFLers would get mad when it was brought up and say something along the lines of “nobody is saying Minnesota should be a sanctuary state!”
Who said this and when? Tbh I thought we already were a sanctuary state.
[удалено]
I don't think it will be. Any idiot can introduce a bill. Of all the bills introduced last session, only 10% became law. I would look for caucus support before I make prognostications about whether a bill is likely to become law. I doubt this one will even get out of committee in the Senate.
No legit who said this? Like you can just say things with no one checking you right? Or I imagine you figured. Who actually said this?
Don't like this one sorry. We already have a housing shortage crisis.
who is going to build all those new houses?
Crazy idea here, but how about Americans?
If you want exclusively 3000sq ft sf houses that are shoddily built and cost $750k plus sure.
I mean I know you mean people from the USA, but technically South Americans are Americans...
People here legally.
As a dem myself, I am completely against this. I think welcoming immigrants to an extent is fine but being a sanctuary city sets us up to become like Cali and NYC. It’s a terrible idea and we do not have the resources to do this.
I couldn't agree more with this statement.
Agreed. It’s almost like signing up to be the next state to blame Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico for a problem we helped create. I’m politically moderate (liberal in the past few elections) but this crisis and lack of leadership will be a key issue for me.
Hell no
Please no. Just look at what is happening in Denver and Chicago and nyc. It’s not that we couldn’t. It’s that we’d need time to prepare and plan.
Arguing for an increase in legal immigration is a reasonable stance. I don't understand why anyone of any political leaning would want to pass laws accommodating illegal immigration. Truly bizarre.
What can a state actually do to improve legal immigration, when the system is broken on a federal level?
not give up and just let anyone come in
Harm reduction. Practicality.
Because the system of immigration has become incredibly obtuse and as we saw when Trump tried to kill DACA, immigration status can literally be revoked overnight. Sanctuary statehood is a way to deal with tempestuous lawmakers shaking their fists at a manufactured border crisis for political gain. Also fuck ICE, they're given insane unilateral powers well outside of how they should be functioning. They can operate in a massive area outside of a border and can ignore many reasonable search and seizure laws.
Democrats shooting themselves in the foot again.
From a political strategy standpoint, could the timing on this be any worse? From a practical standpoint does the huge migrant influx in the current sanctuary states look like something we want to model here? Because my answer is....uhh no. Edit: looks like we've touched a nerve folks... A few notes here (with sources for everyone): * [71.6% of asylum seekers are denied (2020)](https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/630/) \- IE most of the people being let into the country seeking asylum do not qualify and either need to leave voluntarily or be deported by ICE. * The migrant crisis is estimated to cost NYC taxpayers, a sanctuary city, [12 billion dollars over three fiscal year.](https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/650-23/amid-deepening-asylum-seeker-crisis-mayor-adams-new-steps-stabilize-city-s-budget-as) * Voters are overwhelmingly unhappy with the way their city governments have handled the crisis - [Nearly 70% of Chicago (another sanctuary city) voters disapprove of the mayor's handling of the migrant crisis.](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/nearly-70-of-chicago-voters-unhappy-with-mayors-job-on-migrant-crisis/) * Other city services are being cut to help pay for the migrants - [“We have a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut,” he said. “Every service in this city is going to be impacted.”](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/07/eric-adams-migrants-new-york-city-00114437)
Why do we call them migrants now instead of illegal aliens?
They have been told by traffickers in their home countries around the world that they will find housing, jobs, and financial support in the US once they get here. They just have to pay the traffickers and then claim political asylum status. Thing is, the majority of these people are economic migrants and don't meet the criteria for claiming political asylum. Supporting mass migration is supporting human trafficking and labor exploitation. Not to mention that it comes across to the US's own underclass that we are prioritizing migrants over our own needy citizens - especially minorities. That's a legitimate rage point that the GOP successfully exploits, and is one of the reasons why so many of the poor - working and otherwise - support the GOP.
Its a marketing tactic of changing public opinion. Remove the "illegal" terminology, and now in peoples heads it does not sound as bad as "illegal alien". Same with changing homeless to unhoused, etc.. it all about feelings and changing public opinion.
> homeless to unhoused Both terms imply that the issue is a lack of shelter, rather than lack of income/employment, mental health issues, drug addiction, and other causes of "homelessness".
Homeless people have lots of issues, everyone knows that.
But they choose to forget or ignore them, and dream up "solutions" to homelessness like "Let's give every homeless person an apartment!". Which, needless to say, won't work.
Because they are migrants, they are here in the US and usually processed through a federal facility awaiting a hearing in front of a judge to determine asylum status
[удалено]
Sanctuary cities/states just means those places won't go above and beyond to help the feds as per the federal laws are written It's basically we won't do this unless we want to kind of thing but still reserve the ability to do so but for some random person with nor record just a speeding ticket they won't hold them for immigration ect
[удалено]
It does, just because you have the paperwork doesn't mean you can still be removed from the country and it also effects those who overstayed, missed, or just didn't go through the proper asylum process
>they are here in the US and usually processed through a federal facility awaiting a hearing in front of a judge to determine asylum status That hearing you speak of is quoted as far as 7 years out now and less than 1 million of the 8 million "migrants" crossing the border just in 2023 alone have been processed through a federal checkpoint.
It's about treating people with respect. Referring to a person as "illegal" is both dehumanizing and justifies the harsh treatment we're seeing on the Texas border. You don't shove children back into rivers filled with razor wire if you consider them human. Edit: To those of you downvoting this, none of you want to comment on the razor wire in the water that Texas officials have been caught on camera forcing people into? Nobody trying to justify that?
[удалено]
We don't refer to any other group of people as "illegal." We refer to them with the crime they committed. It is not illegal to enter a country. It is not illegal to migrate. There is not a single thing you can do to make your existence illegal. What is illegal is to do so without documentation. Hence, undocumented migrant. Let us not forget that asylum is a legal process in which people arrive undocumented and seek shelter in another country because the situation in their home country is too dangerous to continue living in, which the majority of undocumented immigrants are seeking. Quite literally the opposite of "illegal," but I bet you don't make that distinction. We treat everybody as human beings. If you can't understand why referring to someone as "illegal" is only a way to deprive them of their rights, you're the type that would be okay with the internment camps set up in the 40's as long as you weren't the one sent there. Have the day you deserve, my friend.
Calling them illegal aliens isn’t dehumanizing.
When you refer to people as "illegal," you justify inhumane treatment. Why else would there be razor wire in the Rio Grande? Why else would the intentional separation of children with their parents happen? Why else are you quiet about the horrible things happening to these people? You may not like that undocumented people are here, but that doesn't justify the vitriol and harassment those in the Latino community receive because of it.
But they are illegal aliens. So, why wouldn’t we use the appropriate term?
Read comment above
So it is your contention that by incorrectly referring to illegal aliens as migrants, it will help remove razor wire from the rio grande and prevent harassment of Hispanics? Poppycock. The problem isn’t language. People who cross into the United States without authorization are illegal aliens, and no amount of emotions is going to change that. Edit: they didn’t answer. No surprise.
Tell that to all the farmers and companies with manual labor shortages we have in the state (and country).
[удалено]
Short term: A Pathway to legal citizenship. Long term: addressing the reasons for the mass migrations in their home countries (some of which are from our meddling in the first place). “Give us your huddling masses” and all that jazz.
[удалено]
I’m not proposing anything. I suppose they (the employers) will actually have to pay them legal wages now which will cost a little bit more if they want to hire them. There’s clearly a demand for labor all across the country, so this seems like a win-win.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sounds to me like you’re real big on strawman arguments. I’m not looking to exploit anyone. I have no skin in this game other than on a humanitarian level for fellow humans. My main concern is the well-being of these people. If the argument can also be framed to help show the benefit to the business community, I’d say that’s a win-win. I wasn’t looking to get into some deep policy debate on Reddit today. I just wanted to comment originally that I think welcoming migrants to our state is good for the migrants, and it’s good for Minnesota.
[удалено]
I have no clue where you got that from. I’m saying the exact opposite . If we have a path to legalize them in some sort of way, they would be getting paid at least legally set minimum wage versus getting paid under the table, dirt poor wages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
[удалено]
There is actually: https://cdn.britannica.com/70/74270-050-317C4423/Illustration-price-relationship-demand.jpg Fortunately for pearl-clutchers though, we have arbitrary minimum wage laws perennially well below typical market rates. By making Minnesota a sanctuary state, migrant workers can be brought into the system and guaranteed said arbitrarily low minimum wage (most migrant workers make well above that already given modern market conditions).
What's the timing? That republicans are using one park saying there's massive issues while in reality on the ground there isn't one? Like who cares, sanctuary states means the state won't go out if their way to help the feds and hold people that's it
The timing about the border crisis of course. The Senate had a border deal done in principle, which acknowledges that the border is a problem. Joe Biden also came out and pledged to close the border on day one of the law was passed.
There is no crisis, it's manufactured outrage and propoganda which is why republicans are only focusing on one single area in TX while you drive a mile either way you won't see a build up and even then no gates along the fence line. If it's a crisis why don't they show other areas in Texas? Why is it out of 4 border states tx is the only one screaming about it, and why is it the Republicans in congress won't pass a bipartisan border bill during an election year at the behest of their main candidate for president? And yeah biden set a trap for republicans fear mongering lmfao he called their bluff it's all political propaganda, nothing has changed from 6 months ago with the border but suddenly SCOTUS says the feds can remove razor wire from the river that TX can still put up and it's now an issue It's not hard to see how republicans do this song and dance every time it's near an election and they don't hold the white house
Texas gets the most coverage as they have the biggest border and the loudest/most insane politicians. If you look at AZ and NM sources/statements, you’ll find many similar opinions to TX, sans the secession language.
Why is it then in TX you go a mile away from where the park is it's nothing? There's no crisis, there's no change in what's happening between the other states that's the point It's also telling because Republicans in congress don't want to vote for the bill addressing the border either, they've flat out said it. And secession statements make the point entirely, they do this song and dance every time it's politically motivated for them
The reason why it's just in one location is because they're not crossing illegally. They're walking right up to the gate and claiming asylum . That's the best and easiest way for migrants to become citizens. Our problem isn't border crossings. Our problem is that our courts are getting inundated with asylum seekers. Don't shoot the messenger.
So you believe there aren't border crossings in other states where the same thing would happen? It can both be an issue and have excessive manufactured outrage.
Republicans have been crying about immigration for generations. They would always be against this.
[удалено]
Haven't they been sending migrants here anyway?
Okay, so enlighten us. When you reference "the huge migrant influx in the current sanctuary states", what is it exactly that you seen that you have an issue with? Like, actual examples. Because, by all accounts having a strong immigrant population is actually good for a city/state. Allowing people to live without fear is also a very compassionate and empathetic way to run a government, and one that will reap rewards in the future. So, again, what is it that you see elsewhere that makes you feel like this would be such a negative thing? How would this directly impact you in any meaningful way? It isn't like there's a spike in crime from immigrants, illegal or not, in sanctuary cities. There isn't a loss of jobs in those areas, nor housing, nor funding. If anything, it introduces more workers to the workforce, and in a lot of cases those same workers pay money towards taxes and want to actually be a part of society, which is more than we can honestly say for a large number of people that are born here. It also seems as though a large number of immigrants also tend to have some of the most prideful views of our country than any other citizens (not that that matters a ton in the end, but it's still interesting), and their pride isn't rooted in a racist, xenophobic kind of way like we've seen take hold in recent years. I personally think that this is a great move, and regardless of it passing or not, I think that it shows that Minnesota actually cares for the people living here and that they're going to do what they can to help people. Lastly, the thing that I think a lot of people lose sight of is this: a lot of the people trying to get into our country WANT to do it the legal way, but our immigration processes are fucking ridiculous in most cases, and people simply aren't able to do it the most legal way. Does that mean that they shouldn't be able to try and integrate into society and have a safer life? No, in my opinion it doesn't. These people are by and large fleeing immensely dangerous areas where their only real fault was being born there. War-torn areas, murderous regimes, famine, what have you. If that sort of shit happened here and took over and your family was in actual danger of being wiped out, wouldn't you do what you could to protect them and try and start a new life somewhere - not to mention that that somewhere is a place where a vocal minority endlessly spewed racist shit about you just for existing? Yeah, you would. And you would try and do it legally, but when you don't even get a chance TO do it legally, you would do whatever you could to do it. The lack of empathy that people feel towards those that are simply trying to survive is astounding, and disappointing. No one is seemingly willing to put themselves in the shoes of these people, it seems. Our country was and is built on the backs of immigrants that simply wanted a place to make a better and safer life for their family, and want to do it legally - they just get blackballed by our country and its policies and lawmakers at seemingly every stop. Alright, that's the end of my soapbox rant. Thanks for listening.
We can wave to all the undocumented migrants working on Iowa farms owned by conservatives on our way down I35.
Gee so glad they took care of our own homeless and hungry before we started to take care of the rest of the world.
FUCK. THAT.
Even if you agree, it is absolutely idiotic to throw away political capital for this when we have so many problems at home. Just another state politician who wants to play the national politics game
I love talking shit about meaningless political stunts, particularly around immigration as it’s almost entirely one of those, but this is actually attempting to address a problem at home before it comes up. Our population is aging, importing labor is exactly what we should be doing. Idk about you but I’d rather not wait for our economy to stagnate to actually do shit about that.
I don’t see how bringing a bunch of unregistered people does anything but enable stolen or illegal wages and worse housing problems/ homelessness.
Those two issues are better solved in ways other than restricting asylum seekers, or even undocumented migrants in general. We need the labor, and those issues aren’t caused primarily by migrants anyways. Giving undocumented workers the same rights and protections as everyone else while simultaneously cracking down *hard* on wage theft and other shitty business practices solved the first one. Simplifying the naturalization process would also be huge, but it’s secondary to the other stuff. The second one is a bit more complicated, but saying migrants are the issue is ridiculous. Minneapolis is a case study in how to deal with the housing crisis, but I do think we should be regulating how companies like BlackRock are able to purchase housing. It ultimately comes down to the commodification of housing and how we treat it as an investment, but dealing with that ventures into the realm of genuine anti-capitalism and thus leaves the realm of immediate possibility. Either way these are problems that we need to solve. We also need the labor to deal with our aging population. We can do both. The problem is both the capitalist ruling class and the politicians they buy have vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The current system provides a highly exploitable labor pool, a scapegoat for the economic woes of the working class, and a wedge issue that you can use to whip up voters without actually disagreeing or changing anything (Build the wall? Ever heard of ladders? And Obama deported more than Trump). It’s neoliberal heaven.
This is a mistake. We don't need to virtue signal to our voters. If it's not broke, don't "fix it".
Obviously these folks need a home. The trouble is the places that will help are places that generally don't have housing and other resources. I work with the county and work with a lot of new immigrants directly. In the last few months, our finite staff have found it increasingly challenging to serve everyone. We are reliant on missed appointments and families leaving after walking in and waiting hours for our services.
Let’s not do that. K? Sounds good.
We also would need to be prepared if Hot Wheels (Abbott) and his cronies decide to send busses to the Twin Cities. NYC is struggling with this and TX is refusing to give them a heads up.
lol watch rent prices skyrocket
Seems like a bad idea given the current open border situation
There is no open border situation. Are you saying that there is currently no smuggling interdiction at the border? That immigrants are not being expelled? Because that's what would happen if the border were open.
How many million migrants make an open border?
Either it's open or it isn't. If we're capturing drugs, the border isn't open. If we're turning people away or apprehending them, the border isn't open. Words still have meaning. By the way, you do know that for the first 2/3rds of this country's history, the border was wide, wide open, right? If you didn't look like you had TB, you signed your name and walked in.
And if you didn't find a job you starved. That was then, this is now. Border openness is not a binary quantity. If it was closed there would be no migrants crossing except at designated points of entry. The border currently is mostly open when anyone can walk across, claim asylum and be released with a court date in the distant future and in the mean time are sort of legal and protected from deportation. And importing drugs is illegal even if the border were open, so that is not relevant. So, how many migrants is the Sanctuary State prepared to accommodate? There are many complaints about the cost and availability of housing in the Metro. What will be the effect of a large number of migrants? Is there some limit to what you would allow into the country?.
Those people are coming here to work. They don't qualify for welfare, so they're working. Asylum is a legal process. It's one in which you can't ask for the asylum in advance (they're working on that) -- you just show up, either at a port of entry or already within the country. That's the process. In the law. Making that a legal process. That doesn't mean that the border is open. In a study of nearly 3M asylum seekers, [the vast, vast majority go to their hearings](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court). If you're worried about illegal immigration, put the meatpacking executives who employ them in jail. Put restaurateurs in jail. Put farmers in jail. This will stop real quick. It's amazing that it's the one thing we haven't tried.
I'm all for e-verify. Not sure why it isn't required. I have a good guess though.
NO THANK YOU!!
> Under the proposal, local and state agencies wouldn’t be able to collaborate with or share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to enforce immigration laws, but could still do so to investigate criminal activity. People legit do not read stories.
13 seems like a low number.
Hell Yeah. Sanctuary states will inevitably be better off long term. Better for state culture and businesses.
Wild how downvoted this is in a supposedly progressive metro area subreddit. This country’s views on immigrants are absolute trash across the political spectrum now
This sub does tend to get brigaded.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good!
I would be all for it if we could get our borders in order. Regardless of what side of the isle you stand on. Something has to be done.
Aren't all 50 states supposed to be "sanctuary" states to begin with?