The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

[AgnosticBoy]

I want to discuss the validity of the independents and their effect on the elections.

The effect of independent voters
According to Gallup, 42% of Americans identify as an 'independent' voter, while 30% identify as Republican and 27% as Democrat. This shows that most Americans are not fully committed to either party since the majority are independents. If I broke these stats down state-by-state (as opposed viewing the national average), then this majority stat goes away because registered independents are not heavily concentrated in any state (except New Hampshire). Instead, you'll find states with a big concentration of Democrats or majority of Republicans, with independents occupying some percentage across all or most states. While there is no heavily "independent" party state, but here's where or when these voters will make a difference:
1. In swing states the population of Republicans and Democrats tend to be close in number. For example, the state of Florida has about 5 million registered Democrats and 5 million Republican voters BUT it also has about 3.5 million independent voters (no party affiliation). Here it is easy to see the effect of independent voters if or when the majority of them flocks to one party over the other.

The validity of the Independent voters
I should say that independent voters do not belong to any party. The rationale behind many independent voters is that the main parties have become corrupt, extreme, and too partisan. Being an independent gives you the freedom of mind to agree with and praise a politician like Trump when he's right and to condemn him when he's wrong. To be in any party, it seems you have to remain in a straight jacket and accept the entire political platform of ideas from your party, and then be against all of the ideas of the other party. If you don't believe me then try being a registered Democrat, especially one running for office, and acknowledge anything good from Trump and see the reaction you'll get.

As an independent, you don't necessarily have new views as a third party would. Instead, you can adopt the "good" views from BOTH parties while also coming up with your own views.

For the record, I was a lifelong Democrat, and I'm honestly considering voting for Trump. He seems less extreme compared to the competition. He is the lesser of two evils, imho.

For debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree that independent voters have big effect on elections?
2. Is the thinking behind the independent voter valid? Is it reasonable to remain unaffiliated?
3. Will the number of independent voters continue to increase ?

[Purple Knight]

By the way, it's actually a farce that the economy is doing so hot anyway. What doing well are the stock markets, rich people, and companies. The mill workers, coal miners, auto workers, and all other middle class Americans aren't doing any better than they ever were. So it's a farce to claim that the economy is so great. Not for the average American it's not.

Unemployment is down, and you can see this with your own eyes. Before Trump, people had to beg for jobs against many, many other applicants. Interviews were rare. Now, I see signs all over: Walk in, get an interview. When can you start?

This doesn't make supporting a rotten president right, but you do have to understand not only that people won't vote the bread out of their own mouths, but that it's wrong to expect them to. If only Hitler will give them jobs, then you'll get Hitler.

When that happens, you may try to pass the buck and blame those evil, evil voters who wouldn't die or even sacrifice the chance to have a family so we could have morally better policy, but it won't do any good since you can only milk the suicide base once, and they've already been milked dry. That is to say, once you tell people they have to sacrifice everything, the people who will, do, and then they're gone.

The people who vote for Trump are the silent majority that either aren't savvy enough to bypass the red tape and get assistance when they need it, think doing so is wrong, or both. They usually have a poor opinion of welfare because they struggle and sacrifice to get what those on welfare have.

I'll say a million times that they aren't right, but it doesn't matter. These forgotten souls - these deplorables - have been forgotten about by the system, tossed aside, written off, struck down, laughed at, and mocked ad nauseum. It's the Democratic Party that won't help them, and it's their fault when you get Hitler.

All they want is jobs, for crying out loud. They want to work, and they don't want to end up with less than the poor for doing it. Expecting them to vote the bread out of their own mouths and shaming them when they refuse... is what gives you Hitler.

[AgnosticBoy]

When one side gets too extreme and/or polarizing, then that turns off a lot of independents.

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't know of anyone advocating wide open borders; there's always been a screening process in place. As one commentator recently observed, our immigration system needs reform----not abolition.

When someone comes across the border and all they gotta say is "asylum", and we let them in awaiting a case some months or more down the line, then that is essentially open borders. It is open borders with a password that everyone knows about, password: "asylum". That's not good screening if that's all they gotta do to get into the country (as opposed to letting them wait in their own country). Any terrorists, drug cartel member, and many others can abuse this.

The reason why I'm more hard on the Dems. is because they tend to pass laws that would support such behavior rather than deter it. Giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses, sanctuary cities that don't cooperate with ICE, and talks of decriminalizing illegal border crossings is very extreme. One New York official said something to the effect that, "well they're here, so we may as well allow them to drive". My response is, they're here, you know they are here illegally, so deport them as the law requires.

The one thing people might accuse Republicans on is going through some extremes to "DETER" illegal immigration. But I'd rather deter and enforce the law, than to aid and abet.

[Athetotheist]

I don't know of anyone advocating wide open borders; there's always been a screening process in place. As one commentator recently observed, our immigration system needs reform----not abolition.

When someone comes across the border and all they gotta say is "asylum", and we let them in awaiting a case some months or more down the line, then that is essentially open borders. It is open borders with a password that everyone knows about, password: "asylum". That's not good screening if that's all they gotta do to get into the country (as opposed to letting them wait in their own country). Any terrorists, drug cartel member, and many others can abuse this.

The reason why I'm more hard on the Dems. is because they tend to pass laws that would support such behavior rather than deter it. Giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses, sanctuary cities that don't cooperate with ICE, and talks of decriminalizing illegal border crossings is very extreme. One New York official said something to the effect that, "well they're here, so we may as well allow them to drive". My response is, they're here, you know they are here illegally, so deport them as the law requires.

The one thing people might accuse Republicans on is going through some extremes to "DETER" illegal immigration. But I'd rather deter and enforce the law, than to aid and abet.

Surely you're not denying the reality of the dangerous violence people are fleeing when they come here. And immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than people born here.

[AgnosticBoy]

Surely you're not denying the reality of the dangerous violence people are fleeing when they come here. And immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than people born here.

I'm not. I assume you know that people can lie about asylum just to get into the country.

Just a year or so ago Central American migrants were forming large groups, sometimes up to 7,000 in number (mostly men), travelling across Mexico just to enter the country. I suppose a lot of Democrats would be naïve enough to believe all of them and just let them into the country. When migrants see how naive our government is and how easy it is to get in, then even more will try to come into the country.

[Athetotheist]

I suppose a lot of Democrats would be naïve enough to believe all of them and just let them into the country.

I'd say that's more presumption than supposition. As I mentioned, there's always been a screening process in place and I don't know of anyone suggesting that it be eliminated.

Here's something else to be aware of:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.propub ... grants/amp

[AgnosticBoy]

I suppose a lot of Democrats would be naïve enough to believe all of them and just let them into the country.

I'd say that's more presumption than supposition.

Well just look at the way the caravans were handled. Trump handled it by stopping the caravans from entering the country. He even resorted to putting the military at the southern border. Meanwhile the Democrats and liberal mainstream media attacked Trump's actions while offering no ideas to stop the caravans, assuming that's part of their intentions. My conclusion is reasonable when you consider the reactions between the two parties.

As I mentioned, there's always been a screening process in place and I don't know of anyone suggesting that it be eliminated.

Yes, there's a screening process but as I explained it still amounts to open borders when migrants can get into the country by simply saying "asylum". The screening or verification of their claims doesn't take place until AFTER they are let go into the US. Any terrorist, drug cartel, and many others can abuse this.

The Democrats have offered nothing to fix this issue but instead have supported polices and laws aimed at aiding and abetting illegal immigrants (e.g. decriminalizing border crossings, providing sanctuary cities, abolishing ICE, etc). Knowing all of this, it's very hard to see why anyone would believe that Democrats are against illegal immigration or that they want to deter it. Their actions are consistent with someone who wants open borders.

[Athetotheist]

Yes, there's a screening process but as I explained it still amounts to open borders when migrants can get into the country by simply saying "asylum". The screening or verification of their claims doesn't take place until AFTER they are let go into the US. Any terrorist, drug cartel, and many others can abuse this.

Carlos came seeking asylum. He didn't "just get in", did he? And apparently many like him are in the same boat.

If illegal immigration is such a problem, then maybe instead of focusing exclusively on the symptom we should pay more attention to probable causes----like decades of interventionist US foreign policy destabilizing various parts of the world. If we took care of that, maybe fewer people would find it necessary to flee unrest at home.

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, there's a screening process but as I explained it still amounts to open borders when migrants can get into the country by simply saying "asylum". The screening or verification of their claims doesn't take place until AFTER they are let go into the US. Any terrorist, drug cartel, and many others can abuse this.

Carlos came seeking asylum. He didn't "just get in", did he? And apparently many like him are in the same boat.

You're basing your conclusion off of ONE opinion piece article? Please offer stats from a reputable site to support your claim that a lot of asylum seekers are denied at the border.. Keep in mind your article involves immigrants being FALSELY accused or accused with little to no evidence. That is against the law. The law is anyone coming through the ports of entry can claim asylum and enter the country. Here's my source:

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win asylum.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us ... order.html

If immigration is such a problem, then maybe instead of focusing exclusively on the symptom we should pay more attention to probable causes----like decades of interventionist US foreign policy destabilizing various parts of the world. If we took care of that, maybe fewer people would find it necessary to flee unrest at home.

Yes we should focus on your point and mine. In fact I would be fine doing all that the Democrats want to do to support the illegal immigrants that have been in the country for a long time but only IF they did more to deter even more illegals from entering the country. But when they attack Trump for wanting to deter while also wanting sanctuary cities along with abolishing ICE, that combination encourages more illegals to come into the country. It goes against deterrence.

[Athetotheist]

Yes, there's a screening process but as I explained it still amounts to open borders when migrants can get into the country by simply saying "asylum". The screening or verification of their claims doesn't take place until AFTER they are let go into the US. Any terrorist, drug cartel, and many others can abuse this.

Carlos came seeking asylum. He didn't "just get in", did he? And apparently many like him are in the same boat.

You're basing your conclusion off of ONE opinion piece article? Please offer stats from a reputable site to support your claim that a lot of asylum seekers are denied at the border.. Keep in mind your article involves immigrants being FALSELY accused or accused with little to no evidence. That is against the law. The law is anyone coming through the ports of entry can claim asylum and enter the country. Here's my source:

There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum and you can show that you’d be likely to win asylum.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us ... order.html

If immigration is such a problem, then maybe instead of focusing exclusively on the symptom we should pay more attention to probable causes----like decades of interventionist US foreign policy destabilizing various parts of the world. If we took care of that, maybe fewer people would find it necessary to flee unrest at home.

Yes we should focus on your point and mine. In fact I would be fine doing all that the Democrats want to do to support the illegal immigrants that have been in the country for a long time but only IF they did more to deter even more illegals from entering the country. But when they attack Trump for wanting to deter while also wanting sanctuary cities along with abolishing ICE, that combination encourages more illegals to come into the country. It goes against deterrence.

Where do you get the idea that the article I referred to is an "opinion piece"? It's not headed as such. Opinion pieces offer opinions; this one relates an experience.

The article you referred to offers this curious piece of advice:

Preferable Option: Wait Until You're In the U.S. to Apply for Asylum

How has that stacked up against the administration's "Wait in Mexico" [Migrant Protection Protocols] policy?

Access to legal counsel will be one of the most significant challenges for people subject to the new MPP. As asylum seekers wait for hearings in Mexico, they are unlikely to find U.S. attorneys to take on and adequately prepare their cases.

Asylum seekers may also be subject to persecution and danger in Mexico while they wait with other asylum seekers under harsh conditions.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-updates/what ... cants.html

And as if that weren't bad enough....

Immigration attorneys and migrant advocates say the Trump administration is phasing out its year-old Migrant Protection Protocols policy, also known as "Remain in Mexico," instead prioritizing newer, more restrictive programs that make qualifying for asylum in the United States extremely difficult. (emphasis mine)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigrat ... utType=amp

It isn't just Trump wanting to "deter" that people take issue with; it's the character of the deterrent and the way it has treated immigrants, especially child immigrants. People take issue with the tactics ICE has used. Many regard the treatment of immigrants from south of the border as harsh and unjust, especially since immigrants from, say, Norway presumably wouldn't be so treated.