https://www.axios.com/2024/10/22/trump-mass-deportation-immigrant-camps
Only 56% of Americans said that undocumented immigrants should be given a path to citizenship.
This is literally already happening and has been since at least Bush and Obama? Does people think the border camps are operated and manned through pinky promises and good-faith dialogue? ICE uses boxes of chocolates and impassioned pleas? I guess this is support of it continuing?
wait is this just polling US Christians? Did they go to a bunch of churches what is this breakdown lol. Its "methodology" section just names a Stanford-linked research company but doesn't actually say anything about their criteria here. The number is lower for "unaffiliated" but there's no breakdown of how many of each of these groups proportionally were asked what.
it is lmao, this whole report is constantly relating things to "christian nationalism" and its affects on politics. what trash. And there's no class (or even income) or living environment (urban, rural, suburban, gated fcking community) breakdown or anything, and definitely includes no homeless and lumpen areas, is so fixated on religion, and the 18-29 age group is vanishingly small compared to olders --- and they totally avoid breaking down the generational percentages on a few questions including this one. This whole report is garbage, I read the actual report and it doesn't clarify itself for shit, its selection process just blindly assures that it is 'representative'(enough to say "percentage of americans") when they're just emailing people from USPS databases with an additional 315 opt-in which is its own selection type (5000 people no less, to extrapolate to the whole country in all its differing segments for which their breakdown is barely existent except for Christianity types and intersections).
And it is all so obtuse in its focus and bent on this "christian nationalism," and questions are either vague as to be pointless or weirdly aggressively leading to try to bend it toward that frame and then burying the contextual construction of the series of questions built around it, and their component subquestions, in different places in the text or in separate graphs (with some of the worst graphs I've ever seen, why did they do it this way?). And what little cohesion there was in the report this article removes by separating one part, which is broken down into meaningful demographics and extrapolated even less than the other sections even in the report itself, along these same bizarre obtuse lines. I really don't trust this 5000 person religious-focused obtuse garbage to be able to say as it does "percent of americans." This is fucking awful.
EDIT:
About PRRI
PRRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research at the intersection of religion, values, and public life.
Our mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.
PRRI is a member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the Ameri- can Political Science Association (APSA), and the American Academy of Religion (AAR), and follows the highest research standards of independence and academic excellence. History
Since PRRI’s founding in 2009, our research has become a standard source of trusted information among journalists, scholars, policy makers, clergy, and the general public. PRRI research has been cited in thousands of media stories and academic publications and plays a leading role in deepening public understanding of the changing religious landscape and its role in shaping American politics.
This is pretty bad even for Americans right? Like when was the last time anti-immigrant sentiment was this high? The great depression or something? This is like old timey levels of overt racism
this study is garbage and is focused on how "christian nationalism" is affecting politics, hence the bizarre breakdown (and extreme lack of young people in the report, and with no generational breakdown in a few specific questions including this one, and no breakdown at all for class, income, urban/rural/suburban, or anything, etc.) this whole research non-profit is religious-focused.
but in general, one of the most effective mobilizing rhetorics for the Republicans right now is tying petty bourgeois racist paranoiac tropes (gangs, crime, etc.) to economic working class problems of capitalism which democrats ignore; having it folded into general nationalist false-consciousness trends (which the report does show in its ~5000 people old-religious sample economic concerns over housing and cost of living are the highest concern for people) --- the classic conservative 'they're competing for our jobs,' 'they're taking all the housing and the democrats are giving it to them,' 'they're the reason you can't afford x y z,' 'they're driving up taxes while you can barely afford to survive,' etc. which is a cornerstone of Trump's campaign. Again the report is TTRASSSHHH and doesn't tell us who among these percentages are working class or bourgeois, definitely includes no homeless or lumpen, barely includes young people and often avoids breaking down percentages even with what they have, so it's hard to know anything about the dynamics there in the 5000 sample size that this organization has the gall to extrapolate to "percent of all Americans" and get taken at face value by people. But It's a big focus of Trump campaign that as much as he does the petty-bourgeois paranoiac racism about immigrants eating dogs and bringing guns (lol the cartels get their guns from us not the other way around) he scapegoats them for housing shortages and cost of living increases and tax costs which are real points of struggle for working people. As well as his fantasy that tariffs will bring jobs back to lumpenized post-industrial towns that are in some cases not much better off as far as opportunity, drugs, crime, capital flight and brain drain, etc. than city slum areas. Which again, who knows if any of these areas are represented in this dogshit study at all.
As always, needs drilled more on that there are already more vacant homes than homeless and its banks and real-estate capitalists who sit on them, the same capitalists who the bourgeois politicians in both parties work for and are financed by and working to break down false consciousness for real class consciousness. Basic communist proletarian tasks of agitation, education, and organization around the real causes of the problems. It's similar to the weaponization of the heinous capitalist gouging in medical care to attack trans people 'they can get xyz but insulin/whatever is [cost]' as if the question is 'one or the other' and not 'stop dividing with bigotry and join action-coalitions with the trans-rights groups who had some successes in places to fight for access to insulin and all of these things'. it's false consciousness
Back in 2016 the Dems at least messaged against DJT's wall and migrant ban, so the rank and file were against it for the most part - but they went silent on it and now the line is "we wanted to build the wall but the Republicans wouldn't let us," so its no wonder that public sentiment is getting worse too.
Citizens of the reich will always see foreigners as undesirable
I am surprised it isn't higherhttps://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-support-japanese-internment.aspx
In December 1942, a year after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and several months after Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast were subsequently "relocated" inland to U.S. detention camps, 48% of Americans believed the detainees should not be allowed to return to the Pacific coast after the war. Just 35% of Americans said they should be allowed to go back.
This country has always been evil
FDR was by far the best President in the history of the United States, and it's not even close, but even he had concentration camps. The United States was always evil.
FDR also compromised on the New Deal, excluding African Americans from many new deal programs that would have helped, and also his administration made segregation country-wide via the Federal Housing Administration and their red-lining policies (see the book The Color of Law)
Not In My Neighborhood is also an excellent book about the history of redlining.
What we needed was a John Brown presidency but apparently it's illegal to be that based.
When the Dem leadership started embracing Trump's immigration policies, they took a huge chunk of their liberal base with them. First, it was fascist to support Trump's policies and only conservatives supported them. Now, libs joined them because they have zero principles, they can't even keep up the pretense of opposing policies that they themselves labeled fascist barely 4 years ago.
I'm not crazy and remembering something wrong, right? Immigration was a huge issue in 2016, a big thing being talked about. But I don't remember even ONCE Hillary trying to outflank Trump from the right on immigration.
She didn't
But like many other issues, Dems 'let' Conservatives push everyone right
40 years ago, 'illegal immigration' was a non issue to everyone really
Well, also, 40 years ago NAFTA wasn't a thing, so the people who are now bloodthirsty maniacs were then stably employed and had no practical reason for their hate.
I have whiplash from how fast the dems got on board with being the republicans they railed against 4 years ago.
Trump's winning then.
Also it should be noted just how much and how far the Democrats and #resistance libs have enabled this anti immigrant attitude and behaviour. As an outsider it's incredibly obvious. We went from libs in 2016 saying that no human is illegal and having Anthony Bourdain (may his soul rest in peace) doing episodes of his restaurant and cooking shows in support of the immigrant community, to Kamala Harris plagiarising Trump's 2016 rhetoric and making up myths about how immigrants are bringing crime and drugs (in fentanyl) to the USA. How far they have fallen in less than a decade. Never forget that. Enablers often get off scot-free when they are just as guilty.
Republicans want to round up all the brown people into death camps, whereas the democrats want to round up all the Chinese people into death camps.
Anthony Bourdain (may his soul rest in peace)
No
https://off-guardian.org/2018/06/12/anthony-bourdains-state-department-smorgasbord/
They didn't have far to fall, if you look back far enough. In 2004 Democrats ran on running the Iraq invasion more competently
Liberals are like 1942 Germans who think the Nazis are bad because the death camps are spending too much money and aren’t running efficiently enough, and because the poor SS soldiers don’t get mental healthcare from all the hard work they do
Already is on foreign policy. Domestically, it just isn't perfectly clear yet who the "undesirable groups" will be, because this must be something that both parties agree on and there will be some small disagreements.
The gusanos are one group that’s absolutely unclear on this matter. Their One of the Good Ones card is going to be declined at the border, and they’ll be subjected to the frothing racist hatred they’ve stoked against their countrymen.
Funny coincidence, 100% of me supports putting 47% of Americans into reeducation camps.
I know a bunch of these people. They can't be re-educated. They get the wall.
Nah it's gonna need to be like 98% or more. Maybe anyone who isn't an active dues-paying member of a socialist party and many who are. Some of em may graduate quickly but they're all gonna need some work
Maybe the survey is from a poor sour-
PRRI survey
Maybe it's a small samp-
The survey was conducted among a representative sample of 5,027 adults (age 18 and up) living in all 50 states in the United States, who are part of Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel and an additional 325 who were recruited by Ipsos using opt-in survey panels to increase the sample sizes in smaller states. Interviews were conducted online between August 16 and September 4, 2024
w h a t t h e f u c k
5000 is honestly a pretty small sample size of such a populous country, and this whole report is about Religion and its affects in politics, which explains why the religious breakdown focus is so stand-out bizarre. I see even in the full report absolutely no methodological breakdown for things like income, urban/suburban/rural, by design excludes all of the most marginalized including lumpen and homeless and those without USPS access database records and those without internet to do their survey, (and those who wouldn't be arsed for this kind of stuff) etc. it also barely has anyone in the 18-29 age group, and even in the full report (and so the article) specifically doesn't mention generation breakdowns when talking about the immigration questions, even though it breaks down the generation percentages in (some) of the other sections, like regarding Israel/Palestine. Honestly there's a lot that pisses me off about this "study" and report. Whole thing looks ASS and is so obtuse about its framings, specifically trying to illustrate "christian nationalism" and its effects on politics. The longer report is barely even clearer on some of the critical breakdowns of age, class, etc. and the selection is just emailing people in USPS samples along their weird focus and also getting hundreds of self-selected opt-ins. And the religious focus is just weird as hell.
It's sad that communities I used to think of as progressive safe havens quickly started justifying this shit as soon as Democrats hopped on the anti-immigrant bandwagon.
The majority of crackers want to shove their POC neighbors (don't think these numbers are just for undocumented migrant workers from Honduras) into concentration camps.
My enemy is not the American ruling class, my enemy is the American people
cw Slammer gore
Show
Unironically i think the world would be better off if all of us americans died
