I haven't even listened to the essay and I already like Max Border's insight. His thesis or speculation is that the Biden immigration policy was carefully machined to replace the population that was deserting blue states, thus reducing their hold on congressional seats and other political levers of power. Great Replacement Theory, not exactly, although it comes close to it. Soros is a genius.
It's interesting that when you talk about Obama, you talk about "deportations," but when you get to Biden it changes to "encounters."
Could that have something to do with the fact that Biden deported more people in his term than Trump did in his first term or is on track to deport in his second?
I have added all of the relevant data as a chart to this post. People can make up their minds and go deeper into the issue of encounters versus deportations. // I was not being anything but perhaps careless in the switch, as I was trying to show the discrepancy. But I don't think clarifying the distinction this way militates against the theory. If it does, I'm open to someone making this case.
Theories are best explained using commensurable units. If I say "the price of apples was $3 a bushel -- and look, oranges are going for 2 euros a peck," it's hard to get to "and therefore, X."
And here's the thing: Biden didn't just continue Trump's immigration policies -- including building the border wall -- he greatly expanded on those policies, deporting far more people.
The only real change was that in 2023, he stopped the expanded expulsions under Title 42 ... because that was tied to a "public health emergency" (COVID-19) for which the relevant period expired. I guess he could have renewed the claim that COVID constituted a continuing emergency so that he could continue those deportations ... but would anyone have liked that, either?
US demographics started changing long before George Soros was born, and will continue changing long after he's dead. I doubt he became as wealthy as he is by pursuing stupid projects like trying to alter those demographics in a particular way so as to change voting patterns, etc. So far as I know, he was never a member of King Canute's court.
I know that feeling (from editing 800 words down to 500, etc.). Scripts to a time hack are even harder (I used to write some of those for a radio show).
Below is a bar graph visualizing estimated yearly counts of pro-immigration protests (scaled horizontally for readability; numbers in parentheses are approximate totals based on available data and trends). For Obama years, estimates are conservative due to limited systematic records; Trump's terms show clear increases, especially in 2025.
Thanks for the graph. Now compare it to what you said: "Crickets. No mass protests. No outrage."
Did Obama get far more of a pass than he deserved, on that and on other issues? Yes. But on every issue I run into people saying "'the left' never said a word about Obama." Usually that's when it concerns foreign wars, etc. To which I always reply with the video clips of Code Pink disrupting his pro-war speeches, just like they did George W. Bush's.
I do hate it that partisan politics results in issues sides being louder or quieter depending on who's in office. But neither side of any issue ever goes anything like entirely silent.
On immigration specifically, it's worth recalling that the Democrats have a long history of being immigration authoritarians, while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush ran, in 1980, on "open borders." Yes, those exact words. It wasn't really until the 2000s that Republicans started trying to out-Democrat the Democrats on Making America East Germany Again, and the closest they've come to succeeding was by nominating life-long progressive Democrat Donald Trump on the Republican ticket.
I applaud people who stand by what they say. But when you say "no mass protests" and then publish a chart that says "yes mass protests," which of the things you said am I supposed to believe?
Yes, the recent immigration waves to the U.S. aren't free and open migration, but rather are subsidized, cronyistic relocations.
I haven't even listened to the essay and I already like Max Border's insight. His thesis or speculation is that the Biden immigration policy was carefully machined to replace the population that was deserting blue states, thus reducing their hold on congressional seats and other political levers of power. Great Replacement Theory, not exactly, although it comes close to it. Soros is a genius.
It's interesting that when you talk about Obama, you talk about "deportations," but when you get to Biden it changes to "encounters."
Could that have something to do with the fact that Biden deported more people in his term than Trump did in his first term or is on track to deport in his second?
I have added all of the relevant data as a chart to this post. People can make up their minds and go deeper into the issue of encounters versus deportations. // I was not being anything but perhaps careless in the switch, as I was trying to show the discrepancy. But I don't think clarifying the distinction this way militates against the theory. If it does, I'm open to someone making this case.
Theories are best explained using commensurable units. If I say "the price of apples was $3 a bushel -- and look, oranges are going for 2 euros a peck," it's hard to get to "and therefore, X."
And here's the thing: Biden didn't just continue Trump's immigration policies -- including building the border wall -- he greatly expanded on those policies, deporting far more people.
The only real change was that in 2023, he stopped the expanded expulsions under Title 42 ... because that was tied to a "public health emergency" (COVID-19) for which the relevant period expired. I guess he could have renewed the claim that COVID constituted a continuing emergency so that he could continue those deportations ... but would anyone have liked that, either?
US demographics started changing long before George Soros was born, and will continue changing long after he's dead. I doubt he became as wealthy as he is by pursuing stupid projects like trying to alter those demographics in a particular way so as to change voting patterns, etc. So far as I know, he was never a member of King Canute's court.
I understand. I should have kept the measures consistent. I was dealing with a script that I ended up cutting down and it gutted some figures.
I know that feeling (from editing 800 words down to 500, etc.). Scripts to a time hack are even harder (I used to write some of those for a radio show).
If you think there weren't pro-immigration protests under Obama, that thing you're doing that you think is thinking isn't.
This is a Grok estimate:
Below is a bar graph visualizing estimated yearly counts of pro-immigration protests (scaled horizontally for readability; numbers in parentheses are approximate totals based on available data and trends). For Obama years, estimates are conservative due to limited systematic records; Trump's terms show clear increases, especially in 2025.
2009: # (100)
2010: # (100)
2011: # (100)
2012: # (100)
2013: # (100)
2014: # (100)
2015: # (100)
2016: # (100)
2017: ######## (500)
2018: ########## (600)
2019: ###### (400)
2020: ##### (300)
2021: ##### (300)
2022: ### (200)
2023: ### (200)
2024: ## (150)
2025: ################################################## (3000)
2026: ######## (500)
Thanks for the graph. Now compare it to what you said: "Crickets. No mass protests. No outrage."
Did Obama get far more of a pass than he deserved, on that and on other issues? Yes. But on every issue I run into people saying "'the left' never said a word about Obama." Usually that's when it concerns foreign wars, etc. To which I always reply with the video clips of Code Pink disrupting his pro-war speeches, just like they did George W. Bush's.
I do hate it that partisan politics results in issues sides being louder or quieter depending on who's in office. But neither side of any issue ever goes anything like entirely silent.
On immigration specifically, it's worth recalling that the Democrats have a long history of being immigration authoritarians, while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush ran, in 1980, on "open borders." Yes, those exact words. It wasn't really until the 2000s that Republicans started trying to out-Democrat the Democrats on Making America East Germany Again, and the closest they've come to succeeding was by nominating life-long progressive Democrat Donald Trump on the Republican ticket.
I stand by what I said. The Obama/Trump protest comparisons are the difference between crickets and cacophony.
I applaud people who stand by what they say. But when you say "no mass protests" and then publish a chart that says "yes mass protests," which of the things you said am I supposed to believe?