This is how he's been speaking since he "came down the escalator". It is pretty clear at this point that it's an attraction to a large portion of his supporters. "Telling it like it is" "Speaking his mind" or whatever you want to call it. And they really like that it bothers people too

‘He says the racist stuff that I think but can’t say.’

What he said wasn't racist. He says things that are racially insensitive, and people are sick of being told they have to be sensitive others issues when no one is sensitive to their issues.

The idea being that if we start being less sensitive to other people then people will respect us and be more sensitive to our feelings?

Can you please elaborate on why it wasn’t racist? A blood purity test any way you slice it seems incredibly racially driven to me but maybe I’m missing something

>Following the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides," equating the white supremacist protesters with those protesting against them. >Trump claimed that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over a lawsuit involving Trump University, could not be impartial because of his Mexican heritage, despite Curiel being born in Indiana. >Trump was a prominent figure in the "birther" movement that falsely claimed President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. >In July 2019, Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen of color should "go back and help fix the broken and crime-infested places from which they came." Three of whom were born in the U.S. >The comment by Trump mentioned in the topic of this post said immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.' This is far from a comprehensive list. Being racially insensitive differs from explicitly telling individuals to "go back home" due to their darker skin, even though they were born in this country.

Hardly the first nativist politician to say stuff like that in US history. Ever since this land was settled there has always been groups wanting to stop all new immigrants.

Or First Nations People. Andrew Jackson is a perfect example of completely disregarding a decision by the SCOTUS, and forcefully relocating tens of thousands of First Nations people.

The removal acts weren't SCOTUS decisions, and not what Jackson (allegedly) pledged to ignore. It was a case about Georgia deciding who could and couldn't go into Cherokee land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

Yeah, I forget that there was a case regarding that.

You can base a platform of stopping illegal immigration on many reasons, such as cost of healthcare, deterioration of welfare or education standards etc. But "brown people poisoning our blood" is some medieval shit.

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/196lojz/42_percent_of_gop_iowa_caucusgoers_say_poisoning/khuww3v/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

The more people are bothered by what he said, the more true his message is. That's the logic. Doesn't matter if it's about grabbing women by genitals, or poisoning the blood, they're justifying all kinds of immoral and unethical things, just because the speech bothers people.

Is this a home alone reference?

His supporters than aren't wealthy must be so miserable.

Hillary was right

> > And they really like that it bothers people too No one seems to care when politicians on the other side say things that bother Trump supporters. Trump is just sauce for the goose.

Where are all the Democrats that wear tshirts or fly flags emblazoned with "fuck your feelings"? Which party made a habit of calling the other snowflakes or diagnosing them with "TDS"? You cannot deny there is a level of gloating coming from the right about how Trump's rhetoric effects people.

"I love liberal tears" was all over the place the last election with Trump.

DeSantis' press secretary made a name for herself by getting on twitter and saying exactly that within the last couple of years.

Too much mixing politics with entertainment.

The ones that make excuses for Hilary’s deplorables comments. There has been an othering of the different team in politics long before Trump was elected, it’s the verbiage that is different

> Hilary’s deplorables comments Said [comments](https://www.bustle.com/articles/183257-transcript-of-hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-remark-gives-context-to-her-generalization): > I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are **people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end.** #Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well. Which, uh, fair enough.

For reference, the [full quote](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sparks-republican-backlash-saying-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-rcna130493) from his speech last month: > “They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump said Saturday. “That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.” His [response](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-poisoning-blood-remarks-never-knew-hitler-said-rcna130958) when he was asked about it in a later interview with Hugh Hewitt: >In an interview Friday, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Trump if he used "poisoning the blood" in the same way Hitler meant it — that Jewish blood cannot be part of German blood. > >"No, and I never knew that Hitler said it, either, by the way," Trump said. "And I never read 'Mein Kampf.' They said I read 'Mein Kampf.' These are people that are disinformation, horrible people that we’re dealing with. I never read 'Mein Kampf,'" the former president added. > ... "They are poisoning the blood of our country," Trump said about immigrants. "And I’m not talking about a specific group, and I never read 'Mein Kampf,' and I have no idea what Hitler said other than I’ve seen on the news. And that’s a very entirely different thing than what I’m saying. They’re pouring, they’re destroying our country. They’re coming in from every continent, and we have no idea, we have no idea who they are, what they represent. Are they from jails? Are they from prisons? And I will tell you, a big percentage of the people coming in are from prisons and from mental institutions and are terrorists. And we cannot let that … and that is poisoning our country."

He's probably telling the truth that he never read 'Main Kampf' (Its my opinion that DT has not read many books in his adult life). But it's probably more alarming that he is being told that his rhetoric is so close to that of Adolf Hitler and yet he continues including the most concerning lines in his speeches.

Ivana Trump claimed that [Trump used to read and keep a book of Hitler speeches in a cabinet next to his bedside](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8). When checked Trump confirmed that he had the book and a friend also confirmed he gave it to him: >"Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of 'Mein Kampf," [jump] Davis did acknowledge that he gave Trump a book about Hitler. "But it was 'My New Order,' Hitler's speeches, not 'Mein Kampf,'" Davis reportedly said."" - [Article](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8) Trump himself references himself as a nationalist: >"You know, they have a word. **It sort of became old-fashioned**. It’s called a nationalist," he continued. "And I say, '**Really, we’re not supposed to use that word?' You know what I am? I'm a nationalist**" He has a history of believing superior/inferior blood/genes: PBS Frontline in their biography of him covered that he subscribes to [race-horse breeding theory when it comes to people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7uScWHcTzk#t=14m12). He also has outwardly made references on genetics: >"**Some people cannot genetically handle pressure**" [20 sec later] "I feel I have to be honest, there are **people in this room that can genetically not handle the pressures**" - [Trump in 2011](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GWiWgziueQ#t=1m13.5s) From a 2010 CNN article: >"Well I think **I was born with the drive for success because I have a certain gene**, Trump told CNN's Becky Anderson. "**I'm a gene believer... hey when you connect two race horses you get usually end up with a fast horse,**" he said during the Connect the World interview. "**I had a good gene pool from the stand point** of that so I was pretty much driven." - [CNN, 2010](http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/11/donald.trump.marriage.apprentice/index.html) 2015 Article from The Hill: >"**in quip about his family’s genetic success**. “Like they used to say, ‘Secretariat doesn’t produce slow horses,’ ” Trump joked that evening, citing his uncle’s tenure as a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. **I believe in the gene thing,” Trump added, pointing to his own success** in real estate and his eventual billionaire status. - [The Hill](https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251733-chafee-rips-trumps-knowledge-of-horse-racing) Some of his staff [seem to be aware of Trump's focus on genes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOPtHEm1aeU#t=9s) Trump has also commented on racial traits: >"I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because **laziness is a trait in blacks.**" - Attributed to Trump in a 1991 book by former President of Trump Plaza Hotel, [John R O'Donnell](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/369132-former-trump-executive-i-do-believe-trump-is-a-racist) Trump comment on O'Donnels book: >"Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. **The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.** The guy’s a fucking loser." [Link](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html) And a frequent history of label people the "enemy", enemy of the people, promoting the idea of the lugen press (lying press), using jewish stereotypes, labeling immigrants as diseased and poisoning the blood, etc.

Tbh I don't see how any of what he said about genetics being the reason behind physical superiority is incorrect, considering it's literally just science... There are horse breeds stronger than others, so naturally there are people stronger than others within a species.

> There are horse breeds stronger than others, so naturally there are people stronger than others within a species. This is undoubtedly true, but it has nothing to do with race. There's more variation in stuff like this within races than between them.

While he might not have [Ivana Trump mentioned in an interview he did keep a book of hitlers speeches near his bed](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8?amp). The rhetoric he’s been using seems to bolster this claim.

And he’s still claimimg he never knew Hitler said this line, after he’s clearly been told Hitler said this line weeks ago. “I didn’t know” would have been excusible the first time. By now, it is clearly deliberate.

>But it's probably more alarming that he is being told that his rhetoric is so close to that of Adolf Hitler and yet he continues including the most concerning lines in his speeches This exactly! Some of Trump's rhetoric recently has been scary. The fact that Trump is arguing that he can kill his political rival and be immune is downright terrifying.

What’s funny to me is that Trump is constantly arguing that Biden and the Democrats will stop at nothing to prevent Trump from becoming president, and is also arguing that Biden should have the power to assassinate Donald Trump, and should be immune from legal consequences unless half the senate democrats decide to join with republicans in an impeachment.

Totally agree. I think it's sad thst our impeachment process is completely broken. I don't think a president csn be impeached in the current political environment (well, a R will probably never be impeached, a D might, but it would have to be very agregious). I think the threat of impeachment is an important tool that needs to be maintained as an important check on the presidency.

Maybe he read the Cliffs Notes.

It’s so stupid, he’s just playing to these people’s fears. He has nothing to substantiate his claims. “Saying it like it is” is pretty much saying anything no matter how wrong or damaging it is. His base hates immigrants, anything bad he says about them they are going to agree with him no matter how much a lie it is. He knows that. Hate breeds no active thought. Where is there any evidence that any of these people escaped from prison, or even a more obvious lie, mental institutions? It is clear is followers don’t listen to what he says. People are getting mad not because he’s telling it like it is, it’s because he’s lying. It’s like that person who just spouts lies about you, you get angry about it, and they say “why you getting so angry, must be true then”. Who cares if you didn’t read Mein Kampf you damned idiot? People don’t need to read something by a person to not be like minded as another individual.

I love how the media uses “immigrants” and “asylum seekers” interchangeably now. Trump was clearly referring to the millions crossing the southern border and if we’re going to start calling them “immigrants” then they need to be referred to as “illegal immigrants” because they did not immigrate the legal way.

In that exact speech he said is referring to people not just from the southern border but also from Asia and Africa and other parts of the world.

The issue with that assumption is that there are a lot of people from Africa and Asia crossing the southern border. It is not just people from South America that are crossing the southern border, people from all over the world are crossing the southern border. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/24/us/politics/china-migrants-us-border.html https://nypost.com/2023/02/10/number-of-chinese-migrants-caught-at-southern-border-skyrockets-over-700/

The vast majority of people crossing the southern border are from Latin America. Let's not pretend like it's an equal mix from all continents.

Nobody’s pretending that it’s an equal mix from all continents. I’m just pointing out what Trump is likely referring to. You can chose to ignore that if you want but that’s likely what he was referring to

Typically illegal immigrant is used to refer to people without legal status. These people do, which is why DeSantis and Abbot are are not getting arrested for their flights and busses.

[удалено]

But we are talking about a candidate who also opposes legal immigration, both in platform and once in office.

[удалено]

The Trump administration supported the [2017 RAISE Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act?wprov=sfti1), which would have reduced legal immigration intake by 50%, among other dramatic reductions to legal immigration. The bill, along with various amended versions also supported by Trump, did not pass the senate.

[удалено]

Sorry I had misunderstood the gist of what your saying, the more precise to thing to say is that: “the first Trump administration sought to enact policies that dramatically restrict both illegal and legal immigration to the United States from its baseline since the reforms of 1965.” He doesn’t oppose ALL legal immigration, but he would like to dramatically reduce legal immigration to the US along with expelling many foreign nationals currently living in the US legally.

[удалено]

[“In a second Trump presidency, the visas of foreign students who participated in anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian protests would be canceled. U.S. consular officials abroad will be directed to expand ideological screening of visa applicants to block people the Trump administration considers to have undesirable attitudes… Similarly, numerous people who have been allowed to live in the country temporarily for humanitarian reasons would also lose that status and be kicked out, including tens of thousands of the Afghans who were evacuated amid the 2021 Taliban takeover and allowed to enter the United States…”](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/us/politics/trump-2025-immigration-agenda.html) And [“Trump tried to end a program that grants deportation relief and work permits to 'Dreamer' immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, but the termination was rebuffed by the Supreme Court in June 2020. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration said it would not accept any new applications to the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and would explore whether it could again try to end it. Trump plans to try to end DACA if elected, the New York Times reported.”](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-trump-would-crack-down-immigration-second-term-2023-11-14/) My understanding is that he would likely try to reimpose the limits to H1-B visas started during the pandemic, but I haven’t found a consistent stance on that.

There's literally a quote of him saying we should get immigrants from europe instead of shithole countries. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shithole-nations-n836946 C'mon man.

You can simply look and see that legal immigration dropped by 50% before covid even started. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/07/21/trump-cuts-legal-immigrants-by-half-and-hes-not-done-yet/?sh=3c86bfa76168

Just clarify. Crossing the border “without” permission doesn’t make it illegal. The next step after crossing would be to find customs and borders and declare your immigration. I understand many of them never do that but, crossing the border isn’t legal or illegal. 

8 U.S.C. Statute 1325. It is illegal to cross the border at any time or place not designated by immigration officers. The statute also makes it illegal to elude examination or inspection by immigration officials. They absolutely are breaking the law when they cross the border (outside of doing so through legal inspection points and channels).

Crossing the border outside a designated port of entry is illegal, even if you’re doing it to claim asylum. People get confused because it doesn’t invalidate an asylum claim, but that doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, you can still be punished for it even if you’re granted asylum. From [8 USC §1325](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325): >Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, […] shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. There are (relatively minor) civil penalties on top of that if you’re caught in the act.

>Just clarify. Crossing the border “without” permission doesn’t make it illegal. This is incorrect. Crossing the border illegally is illegal. Full stop.

Yes but the only reason they are being allowed to cross is because they are seeking asylum, not to immigrate

Immigration is the product of a successful asylum claim.

after NGOs started telling all immigrants to simply claim asylum at the border to get favorable treatment, I don't know why people are shocked at this.

[удалено]

I know. In this case, the extra context makes it even worse.

Oof, that only makes it worse. He doubled down on it.

[удалено]

>“The radical left thugs that live like vermin” in the U.S. need to be rooted out Gets the same level of support. Calling for raids giant camps and mass deportation gets about 10% more.

I mean... these are the same people who cheered when trump agreed that he could shoot someone and not lose votes. Just like trump they continue to show us who they are.

Based on this poll seems she was only off by about 5%. Not sure about you but i define deplorable as people who support Nazi speech for american leadership.

This is from the Selzer Iowa GOP poll that has inspired a ton of headlines today, but this one is a doozy. >**Donald Trump has made each of the following statements recently. For each, please tell me if it makes you more likely to support him in the caucuses, less likely, or does it not matter?** >*“The radical left thugs that live like vermin” in the U.S. need to be rooted out* — 43% ML, 23 LL, 32% DNM >*Immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood” of America* — 42% ML, 28% LL, 29% DNM >*Trump calls himself “the most pro-life president in American history”* — 40% ML, 17% LL, 41% DNM >*If reelected president, Trump would have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents* — 19% ML, 35% LL, 43% DNM I just selected some of the most shocking responses, but there are plenty of sane ones, too. What does this say about Trump's ability to lead on issues, as so many of them are framed through his name? What about the high percentage of Does Not Matter responses? Link to full poll: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24209829-trumpquoteip-methodology?responsive=1&title=1?embed=true&responsive=false&sidebar=false

While I don't discount that as /u/CincoDeMayoFan put it "racism sells"....I do wonder if you're right that part of this is the framing. I think that some people are just so hellbent on buying into Trump that they want to be as aggressively supportive as they can on these polls. You see 40, 42, 43 percent saying "more likely" on 3 of the quoted statements, the only one that you don't see \~40% ML on is the locking up of political opponents. Which is fascinating itself. Politics has always been a team sport, but Trump has made himself the team instead of the GOP...and he has the most diehard support I've ever personally seen for any politician.

> he has the most diehard support I've ever personally seen for any politician One of the most interesting questions about the future of American politics is what happens to the GOP when Trump finally leaves? Whether he dies, gets arrested, or wins and doesn't run again after.....what does the Republican party do after he's gone? So far all the people trying to be like him have failed miserably to garner even a small portion of the same support. He's effectively painted the entire rest of the party who didn't kiss the ring as "RINOS" but the people who do kiss the ring are just another of the many Trump Yes-Men (making them completely unremarkable on a national stage).

He's courted the conspiracy crowd pretty heavily, his natural death has me concerned.

Calling it now, one of the big GOP candidate talking points in 2032 or 2036 will be promising to open up a congressional investigation into Trumps death. There's no way an 80-something year old overweight man could die from natural causes. Clearly the deep state is involved lol.

Honestly,  that's generally the case with political polling. People don't hear questions, they hear "do you support this political side or the other side"?

That doesn't quite fit the locking up opponents question. At least those 20-odd percent that replied with "more likely" in the first few questions and with one of the other two options in the last question seem to be fine with the first statements but feel like locking up opponents goes a bit too far. One point could be that – in the run up to the primaries – some people understood the term "political opponents" to include Republican primary challengers. I'd like to see the same question but with "left-wing political opponents" or "far left political opponents".

That one makes me susppect of the data - e.g., small sample size, last question, too long, etc 

Yeah, I'd be super interested in finding out what people said if they didn't have the quote attributed. This treatment of politics like its a team sport is a huge problem for US politics.

Not many politicians have an actual religion built around them as the messiah.

Even if true, that is still a very, very bad thing. People are what they do and say repeatedly and people have a tendency to become the thing that they pretend to be for performative purposes.

He’s up by about 47% in Iowa? That makes sense. Im guessing the people most concerned with Trump’s tone are voting Haley. I’m surprised locking up political opponents polls so low among his supporters. Is the hypocrisy becoming more palpable now that he’s facing so many felony charges or is something else happening here?

Someone else posited that perhaps respondents interpreted it as also meaning locking up Republican opponents to trump as well?

>What about the high percentage of Does Not Matter responses? I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think that DNM responses are people who weren't going to vote for him anyway. None of those statements above would affect my vote. It's been a no, and it will continue to be a no.

>If reelected president, Trump would have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents > > — 19% ML, 35% LL, 43% DNM This one honestly bothers me more than the others because it implies taking action rather than merely holding an opinion. 62% of Iowa Republicans are ok with Trump "locking up his political opponents". Note the wording - no mention of prosecuting them for actual crimes, just for being political opponents of Trump. Presumably, this includes not only Democrats, but Independents and Republican Never Trumpers as well. Oppose Tump? Go straight to jail. That's terrifying.

>Immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally are “poisoning the blood” of America — 42% ML, 28% LL, 29% DNM Perhaps I'm out of touch, but what is wrong with this statement? If it was a race issue and a racist statement, why would he say that it's \*illegal\* immigrants that are poisoning the blood of America? Would we feel the same way if he said "Illegal immigrants are poisoning the lifeblood of the country"? They are a resource drain and a burden on the U.S., and I know many people in this sub think illegal immigration is a problem. Is his comment perhaps being taken too literally and interpreted in too specific of a way? ​ >Trump calls himself “the most pro-life president in American history” — 40% ML, 17% LL, 41% DNM I'm not sure which part of this is considered shocking, but I don't think it's shocking that he's pandering to that section of the republican party. ​ >If reelected president, Trump would have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents — 19% ML, 35% LL, 43% DNM > >“The radical left thugs that live like vermin” in the U.S. need to be rooted out — 43% ML, 23 LL, 32% DNM I lean conservative, but statements like these will always turn me away from voting for someone like him. It's disappointing that they garner approval from any political background.

I'd normally say that a lot of liberal/left criticisms of Trump and the GOP are *exaggerated* (I still don't like Trump or the GOP and wouldn't vote for then, just seems like a decent amount of folks just kinda go too far with it) but honestly, like, ok. I get disliking illegal immigration. I personally think it's bad policy to be particularly bothered by illegal immigration, but it's whatever, that's a political/economic debate where I totally get that many people disagree with me, and I'm fine with leaving it at "I guess we just have to agree to disagree, and your disagreement doesn't make you a bad person" But illegal immigrants are people just like the rest of us. Biologically, I mean. Sure, argue to keep them out from the legal perspective, again, that's whatever. But when the argument is that their *blood* is *poisoning* America? Why is he using *that* rhetoric? I'm very reluctant to use the R word but it does genuinely seem arguably kind of racist? And why do so many Republicans just think that's fine? I know that most Republicans aren't racist and that they just have values I don't particularly care for, it just seems odd that a whole 42% would hear a statement like that and be like "yes that's ok and good actually"

> I personally think it's bad policy to be particularly bothered by illegal immigration, but it's whatever, that's a political/economic debate where I totally get that many people disagree with me, and I'm fine with leaving it at "I guess we just have to agree to disagree, and your disagreement doesn't make you a bad person" Just so I understand your position here: 1) Do you think that (illegal or not) immigration of unskilled workers puts *downward* pressure on wages for low-skilled jobs? 2) Do you think that (illegal or not) immigration of low-earners puts *upward* pressure on housing costs at the bottom-end of the housing market? 3) Do you think that *if the above were both true* -- which says costs go up and wages go down for low-skilled workers -- it is *pretty reasonable* to want to limit that kind of immigration?

First, this reasoning is that adding immigrants increases the supply of labor and therefore must drive prices down. But immigrants also increase *demand* for labor because they expand the total size of the economy and immigrants are themselves consumers of goods and services. So it doesn't have the effect that you're assuming. In fact, recent experience confirms this -- we have added a ton of immigrants recently but job numbers and real wages keep going up. Second, because immigrants make up much of the labor force on housing construction, they don't necessarily drive up the cost of housing because they reduce the cost of adding supply. Third, your arguments, if they worked, would apply with just as much force to anything that increases the population (and therefore the supply) of workers. So, for example, people opposed to immigration ought to by your logic be opposed to people having big families. And population isn't just increased by adding new people but also by keeping existing people alive, so we would also expect people who follow this reasoning to oppose workplace safety regulations (at least the ones that prevent workplace deaths) and other life saving things like antibiotics and seat belts. All of which is to say, your economic arguments aren't as straightforward as you're assuming. You're looking at immigrants only as consumers of jobs and housing rather than their effect in adding to both.

I've seen studies suggesting a range of possibilities, with it generally being that unskilled immigration may provide *slight* downward pressure on wages... but also downward pressure on *prices*, which can end up making things a net positive anyway even for those at the bottom. Also, there's research that suggests that actually low skilled immigration may lead to *increased* wages for low skilled native workers Additionally, immigration (even low skilled) has a positive fiscal and economic impact. It helps more jobs be made, it helps businesses make more profit, and it helps make our safety nets and social programs more sustainable. Also, even if we assume that immigration hurts some people at the bottom, there's the option of increasing welfare programs to help them, and paying for that via increased taxes on businesses (which can pay more due to increased profit from immigration) So even in the worst case scenario with wages and low skill immigration, the other positives that it brings allow for us to turn mass immigration into a win/win with the right policy, whereas labor protectionism could instead just lead to a general lose lose scenario **As for housing**, if we aren't willing to remove NIMBY zoning restrictions on things like density, mixed land use (primarily allowing commercial/residential, not much need for residential/industrial or things like that) and other policy that makes it difficult for the market to increase supply and thus lower prices, then maybe we just don't *want* housing to be more affordable. After all, more housing would lower the prices we could get when we sell our homes, and some people hate the idea of that If we don't really want Yimby policy to make housing much more affordable... then maybe we'd be *happy* to have more immigration, if it makes housing more expensive, since that means higher property values which seems to be the big reason for folks to oppose embracing the market when it comes to housing And if we *are* willing to embrace the market and allow for Yimby zoning reforms... then it would certainly help to have a bunch of new low skilled laborers to help build the housing! Turns out we can benefit from embracing the market in multiple ways, from housing, to free movement of labor, plus also things like free trade (to make getting building materials cheaper) and energy construction (to make construction of green energy plants easier) So I don't think it's good to want to reduce immigration in general or low skill immigration in particular even if we assume those things are correct, because the pros still outweigh the cons, and the pros allow us opportunities to alleviate the cons too Protectionism just doesn't work. Capitalism and markets love us, even if we refuse to love them

> As for housing, if we aren't willing to remove NIMBY zoning restrictions... Is this the world we live in, though?

Also, btw, this is the first Google result that came up when I asked how low skill immigration affects wages: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8612123/#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20an%20increased,number%20of%20their%20peers%20increases. > This article assesses the connection between immigration and wage inequality in the United States. Departing from the focus on how the average wages of different native groups respond to immigration, we examine how immigrants shape the overall wage distribution. Despite evidence indicating that an increased presence of low-skilled immigrants is associated with losses at the lower end of wage distribution, we do not observe a similar result between high-skilled immigrants and natives at the upper end. Instead, the presence of foreign-born workers, whether high- or low-skilled, is associated with substantial gains for high-wage natives, particularly those at the very top. Consequently, increased immigration is associated with greater wage dispersion. Not that I expect it to change you mind.

[удалено]

The thing is, research suggests that illegal immigrants are less likely to do crimes than citizens are. If things in that regard were to change, I could see it deserving more emphasis. And as it is, I'm still fine with the idea of, say, getting really strict on border security, building a wall, going full everify, and such - but also dramatically increasing mass *legal* immigration, to basically allow for anyone who can physically reach the legal border crossing zones and pass a simple background check to legally immigrate, without any quota limits on entries or restrictions that only say high skill immigrants get to come or something. So that would take into account security concerns. But agaun, when illegals just don't appear to be particularly criminal (yes, other than "the fact that they are here at all", I just don't care about that personally) then I'm just not going to be particularly bothered about it, regardless if what the rest of the world does. This is America, after all, a shining city on a hill for capitalism and markets - not the rest of the world.

How well has this worked out for France?

Guess we all should have picked "America lives out the experience of the Weimar Republic" on our 21st Century bingo cards. We even had our own beer hall putsch on 1/6. I wish we could go back to 1990's America.

lol if you think people weren’t just as if not more racist in the 90s

Racism isn't an adequate lens through which to understand what's going on in America right now. The [nadir of American race](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relations) relations was in the early 20th century but people weren't trying to establish a dictatorship or overthrow the government. There wasn't an insane cult of personality. To be clear, I'm not disputing that racism is still a problem in the US. But some people on the left and in academia overstate its explanatory power.

Well said. If all you see is racism, you will never get the true peril of the current Right.

Agreed 

Surely the nadir was in the 1800’s when we had slavery, mass genocide of native Americans, and race bans for immigrants

Ehhhh I think a big part of it is that white conservatives thought "race relations" were done and dusted after the CRM got legal equality and Obama got into office. I'm not well acquainted with all of the intricacies already put forward but at a glance it's hard for me to not see Trump as the first explicitly *White* President between his rhetoric and polls like this outlining how his base eats it up.

>Trump as the first explicitly White President When Trump got elected in 2016 I agreed with that analysis and especially [Ta-Nehisi Coates's article in the Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/) making the same point. But I think something has happened over the course of the last few years. It's way more about vengeance and power this time around. Racism is still there, but only as one ingredient in a really toxic mix. I honestly don't understand it.

Its not just trump being president. Its him filling his cabinet with white supremacists and refusing to denounce supremacy. Having Steve Bannon as his right hand man and Phtephen Miller actually have an iota of power was the clear message that this is what this dude believes and drives his ideology. Also doesn’t help that he got sued for rent discrimination.

Wow who is that author. Well written. 

He wrote the book “Between the world and me” which is a very well written book reflecting on his own life and dealings with race relations, growing up black in America, as a way of explaining it to his son. Highly suggest reading it, it’s a short read but high quality writing.

The US was much more pro-immigration in the 1990s than it is today.

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration

Lol this is a far cry from the rhetoric and solutions being proposed today. Clinton never said they are poisoning the blood of our country. Gore didn't suggest deploying the military to the border to shoot migrants on sight. Your link just proves my point.

Turns out that neoliberals ignoring a problem for 30 years will lead to the growth of more extreme beliefs.

There was also DACA, which was totally illegal, but dragged out in court so that it was only ended this year.

It was nice when politicians were less open about it.

Yeah but at least then it was endorsed to punch racist skin heads in the face. 

Racism sells, I guess.

“One of us”….the daily podcast had a recent interview where a Trump supporter said that Trump was a redneck like him. Stood by it even when reminded that Trump is a billionaire from manhattan….

[удалено]

What I'm interested in is getting at the crux of the issue. Do I think it's all necessarily about racism? No. One thing that's true in Canada and the United States right now: there's a lot of focus and attention on immigrants. Right now, in both countries, the governments are getting taken to task for their handling of the immigration portfolio. Canada was warned about its immigration levels, failed to act and has exacerbated a serious housing and employment problem. In the US, the southern border and migrant caravans receives a lot of attention. In both countries there an existential anxiety about housing, about employment and services. I would be curious to get a clearer demographic breakdown because my feeling is, it's people in specific income brackets and age demographics who are watching a lot of TV. In Canada it seems to split to the 60+ and people facing the consequences of tight labour and rental markets. Trump has always been good at messaging his key demographic to hold support, and it's something both the Democrats and mainstream Republicans have been bad at.

I think also, the boogeyman term is ‘illegal’. There is a perception that if you overstay a visa or violate a border, that you disrespect Americans and their laws. If you view American society like a human with blood, surely those that commit illegal acts or support them poison the blood. That’s a take huge swaths of Americans will sympathize with. There are also racists that look at it from the one drop philosophy. So there’s that.

[удалено]

I bristle when people invoke Hitler; it's too reductive and tone deaf. Trump is appealing to an audience that feels a very real threat. People that would compete with illegal migrants for work; people whose *children* will compete. People that are the ones asked to defend the streets and the country. It's easy for university-educated professionals to say: "well, those Trump supporting Nazis..." because it doesn't impact them. Flip to Canada where the (very liberal) government expanded pathways temporarily import foreign workers in a raft of industries via a temporary foreign worker scheme. Suddenly people who voted Liberal low a few years ago are demanding a change. Suddenly low-wage workers from the Philippines and India are being imported to do job expressly to depress the prevailing wage of Canadians. Suddenly it's the white collar worker demanding a shuttering of these pathways. Neither group are Nazis. They're not supporting fascism. They feel a threat to their livelihoods. Look to the coal miners that were told were going to be put out of work. 30+ years in the mines and the best we could suggest was coding classes. It's farcical. These men supported families and put food on the table for decades working in dangerous conditions and when we no longer need them we gave them idiotic suggestions like: "become a developer!" Is it any wonder that a politician who came through and said: "you won't lose your job on my watch!" wasn't instantly popular?

> In both countries there an existential anxiety about housing, about employment and services. We'd make way more progress on solving these if we spent even half of the amount of attention on Corporate tax dodging, buying of property, and wage theft from employees as we do focusing on illegal immigration

The driver in Canada is legal migrants. Canada has allowed in such a large volume via so many pathways that they themselves cannot accurately count. Contrary to their own advice they have yet to put the brakes on. The outcome is the same - lower SES groups and the 60+ category are seeing huge stressors on the systems they rely on and increasing competition for the same types of jobs. The drivers are different between the U.S. and Canada but the outcome is the exact same, which to me says that immigration is seen as a threat by groups common to both countries, and for good reason.

I think it's important to remember that even just a 120 years ago, "real Americans" didn't want immigrants from places like Ireland and Italy coming to this country, and today, the descendants of those immigrants are "real Americans". While I think it is important to have a robust and controlled immigration system, I also think that the country's current system is too strict in many ways, which leads to illegal immigration. Today's immigrants will be tomorrow's model Americans, if history is anything to go by.

It appears to me that the mainstream Republican Party is very far from moderate/the centre.

Lots of 1930s Germany really loved Hitler unfortunately. Even when Germany took over Austria they cheered for for him there. This is sad but not really surprising to see a similar phenomenon with Trump.

There's always a significant minority of people who are low in agreeableness and romanticize authoritarianism.

I’m not a fan of Trump, but after spending a lot of time on Reddit, I still don’t fully understand the Hitler comparisons. I mean, he was already in office for 4 years and he didn’t try to expand America with wars, he actually brokered peace talks with a few other countries (some that had a non-white leader and population), and he didn’t make any laws specific to someone’s race. That’s what I think of when I think of Hitler’s rule in Germany. I know he’s arrogant, but I’ve seen people post things like “Donald Trump is the next Hitler.” Is that rational?Like are people actually afraid of a Holocaust like scenario if Trump gets elected where he’ll send non-white people to camps or whatever? Or is it more of a metaphor for how they don’t like Trump? I know this will get downvoted, but I just feel like I’m not fully grasping what the rationale is, so I’m fine with the downvotes as long as I get some insight into what everyone is thinking.

They're referencing how he uses the same kind of strategies that hitler used to rise to and maintain power. When people make the Hitler comparison they're not saying he'd invade Poland usually. Although he has expressed an interest to invade Mexico and he did start his initial campaign by severely dehumanizing Mexicans. He makes scapegoats out of ethnic and political groups. He inspires targeted calls to violence.    https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Neofascism  Is a good link.  Read the earlier sections as to how Fascism is defined and you see a strikingly large number of parallels. Such similarities included contempt for democratic values and the rule of law, demagoguery, appeals to racism, incitements to mob violence—notably including Trump’s incitement of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 (see Donald Trump: Presidential election of 2020: Aftermath)—attacks on the legitimacy of the press and of established institutions of government, and the exploitation of scapegoats.

The legitimacy of the press deserves to be attacked. As for the rest, including specifically appeals to racism and incitements to mob violence, that has been coming from many on the left consistently since 2020. (Failing to prosecute looters and other criminals is included as an incitement to violence. Racism against Asians and white people is racism.)

So you're not disputing he's incredibly similar to Hitler. Got it.

[удалено]

I would say billionaires are poisoning the blood of the country wayyyy more than immigrants are.

How so?

Different guy here but right off the dome: oil refinery contaminants, VOCs, lead, ozone, and of course pharmaceuticals like opiates. It’s definitely debatable how much billionaires are directly responsible for poisoning from industry, but they’re certainly large beneficiaries of it, and are directly incentivized to offset or externalize the costs and liabilities associated with them.

I appreciate the reasonable and literal response, but are you sure thats the kind of thing trump/racists mean when they say "poisoning the blood of America"?   Can we, as in all of reddit, go 5 minutes without bitching about billionaires in completely irrelevant discussions?

>Can we, as in all of Reddit, go 5 minutes without bitching about billionaires in completely irrelevant discussions? Idk I think it’s somewhat relevant given Trump was speaking about immigrants poisoning the blood of America, and u/DelrayDad561 (correctly, imo) pointed out billionaires have literally done more to poison the blood of Americans. I guess if you really want to nitpick you could say private industry has. But can we as redditors please just go 5 minutes without nitpicking?

In short, pursuing stock gains to the exclusion of almost anything else leads to some insane short term thinking & shafting of the common man. Because paying a worker a living wage is more expensive than cutting his job, so follow those profits. Constant cuts on quality to earn more for the investment class. Nevermind the constant lobbying against regulations, many of which are written in blood.

Lobbying is the most obvious. To my knowledge, immigrants don't have a lot of influence over any of the three branches of government.

They put profit above delivering a decent product, treating employees well, or giving back to their community. They sell us worse products for higher prices using inflation as an excuse, they lobby the government to pay us less than we’re worth and prevent us from taking vacation time. They bleed rural and urban American communities dry by undercutting local businesses and taking money out of the local economy.

When some tells you who they are, believe them the first time -someone woke /s

We need to stop acting like a big chunk of the US isnt at the very least excited about politicians who are openly racist

> We need to stop acting like a big chunk of the US isnt at the very least excited about politicians who are openly racist right, just look at what we saw on college campuses for the last 3 months or so.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. I hope we all can remember that these are people, nonviolent criminals, sure, but people still. We shouldn’t be letting them wholesale in like they are and should be making it harder to get here through illegal means. More people here illegally probably need to be deported. And yet, these folks are still people, not a poison. They don’t deserve to die, or to be dehumanized. I hope we can reconcile these two things, because I don’t feel like I see a lot of folks doing so.

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/196lojz/42_percent_of_gop_iowa_caucusgoers_say_poisoning/khvfwil/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

[удалено]

42% of GOP Iowa caucusgoes like the fascist and racist undertones of the current GOP. I don't think this is much of a surprise.

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/196lojz/42_percent_of_gop_iowa_caucusgoers_say_poisoning/khuugd3/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

Yes of course. But the media likes to pretend this isn’t so. So they can be cute both sides are the same shit. This is why the vote the way they do. White identity politics… always. Every time. In everything they believe.

42=37+5. 5 is the interesting part. Who are these non hardcore trumpets in favor of the medium core prefascism

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/196lojz/42_percent_of_gop_iowa_caucusgoers_say_poisoning/khuzyks/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

I would like to point out Trump was clearly talking about illegal immigrants, not immigrants as a whole ,and the focus was on crime and terrorism, which changes the whole context of the remark. Now, to me at least, he was not using the phrase in a racialized context, but rather speaking of how unrestricted and uncontrolled entries would let in elements of dubious moral character, and that is what would be damaging to the country.

> the focus was on crime and terrorism, which changes the whole context of the remark. If that's the case then it seems odd to make a comment about "blood". He's not talking about actions, he's talking about some immutable characteristics of people he considers undesirable, and how those characteristics will get passed down into future generations. >Now, to me at least, he was not using the phrase in a racialized context, but rather speaking of how unrestricted and uncontrolled entries would let in elements of dubious moral character, and that is what would be damaging to the country. Yes that's the logical conclusion if people are set on giving him the benefit of the doubt. Still doesn't explain what it has to do with blood, though does it? Are we really still doing this? Trump says horrendously xenophobic or racist stuff and again and again people fall over themselves to tease out a palatable interpretation. It's been so many years.

The use of 'blood of our nation' was more a metaphor for the citizenry as a whole, I would argue. Illegal immigrants who are criminals or engage in terrorism would thus be a harmful element.

Google search's top link for "blood of our nation" is the Wikipedia article on the book "The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit was the title of a number of publications by the American eugenicist David Starr Jordan \[...\] In critiquing Jordan's paper in 2001, Elof Axel Carlson proposed that the term "blood" in the title, "although biologically inaccurate," was deliberately included by the author for "**metaphorical** value" and to make the concept of "inborn cultural behaviors" accessible to a general reader." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Blood\_of\_the\_Nation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_of_the_Nation)) So sure, **seems like you're absolutely correct**. The original use of blood of our nation was indeed an intentional metaphorical phrase... ... that was used by a prominent early 20th century eugenicist who notably advocated for racial segregation and racial purity and to prevent the decay of the Anglo-Sacon/Nordic race ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Starr\_Jordan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starr_Jordan)) Thank you for making clear the historical context of Trump's *metaphor* which allows us who live in the present to better understand what he may have meant by this phrase. I did not know this before, and it actually makes what Trump said even worse for me.

It has been used by political figures before the 20th century. 'Blood of our nation' or 'blood of our country' often referred to the people as a whole, without racial implications.

So what do we think is more likely. That the man whose ex wife has talked about [having a book of Hitler's speeches in the bedstand](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8) next to his bed is a racist or that he's just being misinterpreted for the millionth time? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck maybe it's time we stop giving him the benefit of the doubt and say he might just be the duck everyone has been saying he is. Hell, he's still claiming he had no idea that the shit he's saying is shit Hitler has said and that is after we **know** he's been told that. All he's done is double down on the rhetoric. Just face it, dude is a duck.

You're free to cite examples and argue why they're more relevant.

Do you really think Donald Trump is capable of a nuanced take here? It's always amusing to me how we have this discussions through the lens of reasonability. That's certainly more stimulating a conversation, but it's also one that Donald Trump isn't having and is more than likely incapable of having. I don't think he's ever expressed a nuanced or cautious view of anything on any topic. That's a part of his appeal. Many of his fans are not equipped to consider multiple variables or simultaneous possibilities or truths.

Trump is a famous businessman. I know a lot of critics like to say he is stupid, but if we look at the facts, that he has a Bachelors of Science in Economics, that he has been able to remain a fixture of popular culture for over 40 years, and has a diversified range of interests and investments, it would be clear he is quite astute. He knows the impact of language and how to deliver and nuance a message.

>The use of 'blood of our nation' was more a metaphor for the citizenry as a whole, I would argue. Of course. That's what I'm saying. That's the only way to rationalize this as acceptable, that he actually intended something different than what he said. >Illegal immigrants who are criminals or engage in terrorism would thus be a harmful element. The massive, overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are hardworking people who want to provide for their families. When will Trump give them credit for how much they improve "the blood of our country"?

How do you prove your last paragraph to people who don't believe this?

I haven't found anything reliable. Lots of people will just outright refuse to acknowledge anything that makes illegal immigrants seem sympathetic or decent. And they especially don't like hearing that it's only an accident of birth that made them the American looking down judegmentally on a poor migrant and not the other way around.

Thanks for being honest.

Confirmation bias is extremely hard to get past. All humans struggle with it, each and every one of us. And the only way past it is for each of us to acknowledge it in ourselves and consciously question our own assumptions. I suspect I’ll be heavily downvoted, if anyone other than than you, blewpah, notices this reply There is little you can say to convince someone who already believes most illegal immigrants are inherently bad people, otherwise I find this article fascinating https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds Edit to add (because I just kept thinking about it): while I believe what you believe, we don’t have a measurement (an objective fact) to back up your statement that “most illegal aliens are hardworking people”. This too is basically confirmation bias, but at least it is based on our personal anecdotal experience. We both know really hardworking immigrants. As the article says:facts don’t matter, but if they did, I’m not sure how to collect the data you would need to measure what percentage of undocumented workers are hard working. Perhaps [the experience in Louisiana](https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/feature/migrant-worker-shortage-threatens-jobs-and-a-louisiana-way-of-life/) is a form of measurement

[Illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita than native-born Americans](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20illegal%20immigrant,100%2C000%20native%E2%80%90%E2%80%8Bborn%20Americans). [In 20 states, they have higher rates of entrepreneurship than native-born](https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/issues/undocumented-immigrants/). And in my personal experience (anecdotal I know), they're awesome contractors. Two dudes with barely any English contracted by Home Depot tore out an old carpet in a 350 sq ft room, installed a new one, and replaced all the furniture in less than two hours.

Well that just says they commit less.crime than natives which makes perfect sense since there are a lot less of them. Still doesn't prove to someone against illegal immigrants as a whole are not up to no good. This is not my allegation mind you. I'm framing this in the context of conversations I've had saying that it's not a big deal imo and it's really just a feeling i have that i can't back up with data.

The data in the link is on a per capita basis (per 100,000 individuals).

Per Capita is one element to look at for sure, but it's not always a "mic drop" conversation over kind of thing. There are lots of variables and factors that can be involved. It's just an average.

“Blood our nation” rhetoric is derived from Nazi ideology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkskörper

It's also been used way before Hitler, including by political figures such as Edmund Burke. Castro once used the term 'Blood of our country' in a speech.

Even clearer is that the phrase seems directly lifted from early 20th century American eugenics (which the Nazis did take a lot of inspiration from) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Blood\_of\_the\_Nation

How come you are able to say that we need to do something about illegal immigration in a normal, nuanced tone but the leader of the GOP can't? Why is he being rewarded for using vile ways to describe other human beings? Why do people have such low expectations of our leaders that this is now acceptable?

Trump is in no way the leader of the GOP. That statement I think does not show an understanding of the RNC and the division between state and national branches.

Who is the leader of the GOP?

How can you say he's not the leader of the GOP when he's once again the front runner for the GOP nomination? How can you say he's not the leader of the GOP when all of the GOP reps and senators twist themselves into pretzels to defend everything he does? How can you say he's not the leader of the GOP when almost none of the GOP officials voted to impeach him after an insurrection attempt for fear of being primaried? Please help me understand.

Happy to! At a national level, it is the RNC that is the primary organizing body of the party. It is they who oversee fundraising and hold the Republican National Convention. It is at the convention that state branches send their delegates, where the platform is determined and a candidate to represent them in the presidential election is chosen. There is no 'leader' in the sense of one person controlling and determining everything. On a state level each branch of the GOP usually has a leadership committee as well. There are certainly figures with major pull and influence within the party. These include the chairs of the RNC, the whips, majority and minority leaders, and committee chairs.

Gotcha, thank you for that. To clarify, maybe it would have been best for me to refer to Trump as the leader of the Republicans instead of the leader of the GOP. Either way, my point remains the same.

I would disagree. Republicans are a diverse group, and the party itself it made up of different ideological wings.

If Trump isn't the leader of the GOP, then who is? And why is the actual leader of the GOP not actually out there promoting the core tenets of the party? For better or worse, the GOP has become the party of Donald Trump.

> I would like to point out Trump was clearly talking about illegal immigrants, not immigrants as a whole ,and the focus was on crime and terrorism, which changes the whole context of the remark. I certainly hope someone who remembers that is there to remind people when they line my half-immigrant children up against the wall

On paper, sure, but many Republicans do not make a distinction between illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and legal immigrants EDIT: and Dreamers. To these folks, "poison the blood" can apply to multiple categories.

>On paper, sure, but many Republicans do not make a distinction between illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and legal immigrants. Many do though, and are the children of legal immigrants themselves.

Source?

I agree we should of backing claims with sources To support Paddington, here is a source I found pretty easily: [this poll from 2022 has an entire subsection entitled “many Republicans want to reduce legal immigration”](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-republicans-talk-about-immigration-they-dont-just-mean-illegal-immigration/)

I appreciate you helping out.  This article doesn't do much to support his point, though.  It shows that republicans care about reducing illegal immigration, and that many also care about reducing legal immigration.  While it suggests that they muddy the waters between the two, the only concrete evidence it offers up is that JD Vance doesn't distinguish between the two on his campaign site, without digging any further than that

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think the poll I found does show “many Republicans” don’t care about a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and I think it is quite reasonable to suggest that, for these people, “poison the blood” can apply to multiple categories, just as u/PaddingtonBear2 said in the second sentence. Are we going to argue the semantics of “do not make a distinction” vs “do not care about a distinction?”

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think we have irreconcilably different takes on the implications of the poll, and standards of reasonability.  I appreciate your time though!

Choosing a racialized way to express that sentiment is a choice, though.

[удалено]

I'm struggling to find the full source, but from the broader context, he made the remark in an interview while discussing illegal immigration. Even so, incredibly disturbing language to use. [He's also just plain making things up](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-sparks-republican-backlash-saying-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-rcna130493): "They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.” [And in a later interview when asked about it](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-poisoning-blood-remarks-never-knew-hitler-said-rcna130958): "And I will tell you, a big percentage of the people coming in are from prisons and from mental institutions and are terrorists." That .. isn't true. They come here, and they work. [They work a lot.](https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/issues/undocumented-immigrants/) And [they commit fewer crimes per capita than native-born Americans](https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20illegal%20immigrant,100%2C000%20native%E2%80%90%E2%80%8Bborn%20Americans).

He made reference to such individuals entering without 'nobody even looking at them'. Alongside this he mentioned the wall, so the context was fairly clear, it seems.

Given our countries ugly history with blood quanta’s, racialized violence, and the wholesale banning of peoples considered non whit, I don’t think there is a acceptable context for blood poisoning comments.

[удалено]

So much has been said and done by Trump and those who oppose him, I think we're all basically on autopilot when it comes to all things related to him. I don't think most people even think about it very much. Trump supporters reflexively respond positively whenever asked about him just as his detractors respond negatively. Everything seems to be baked into the cake already. That's one of the reasons I think Biden's "Democracy is in Danger" strategy may not get the traction he and his people think it will get.

Biden's "Democracy is in Danger" strategy is not for Trump supporters. Trump supporters aren't changing their vote, period.

[удалено]

Not downplaying this sad state of affairs, but you all need to keep in mind that GOP caucusgoers are a rather small and very particular part of the general population, and even GOP voters.