Isn't "freed and flown home" the same thing as "deported"? These were routine professionals doing a job they took in good faith under rules and norms that have held for a century or more.
replies(11):
Absent other argument, I'd say "where they've been since the 50's" is a good prior to take, no?
To counter-quip: what is the goal? I genuinely don't have any idea in this circumstance how the reactionary right wing adherence to ideology does anything but harm the country they claim they're trying to improve.
I mean, do you want Hyundai to build factories in the US? Everyone seems to claim so. Yet here is a Hyundai factory that seems likely to be shuttered or delayed for years because of... ideology?
Please listen to the NYT podcast I linked. In 1950, immigration had been severely restricted for three decades, dropping the foreign-born population from 14.7% in 1910 to 5.4% in 1960. Then, Congress enacted Hart-Celler in 1965, but promised that it would not increase immigration. According to Gallup, public support for increasing immigration has never exceeded 34% since that time, and from 1965 to 2000, was under 10%. But in that timeframe, the foreign-born population has grown from a low of 4.7% in 1970 to 15.6% in 2024--higher than it ever was in the 20th century.
So no, continuing to ignore the immigration laws Americans voted for and have consistently supported is not a good prior.
This is going to be exaggerated by the decline in the domestic birth rate over that same period. It’s widely recognized that the U.S. has avoided the aging population effect seen throughout the advanced economies solely due to allowing more working-age immigrants.