u/SingleInSeattle87

DSA is called out A LOT in this video. I thought it'd be good to bring it to your guy's attention.

The current US immigration system is fundamentally flawed because of how broadly it defines family sponsorship, leading to what is commonly known as chain migration. Right now, the ability for an adult citizen to sponsor not just immediate family, but parents, adult siblings, and extended family members creates a cascading effect that strains resources and hinders integration.

To fix this, we should strictly limit family sponsorship to only two categories: the spouse of a US citizen and their minor children.

Here is why this change is necessary:

1. It eliminates the "Anchor Baby" incentive

Under the current framework, a child born on US soil automatically receives citizenship. Once that child turns 21, they gain the legal right to sponsor their parents for green cards. This 21-year loophole is the driving incentive behind birth tourism and undocumented individuals having children here to secure a future foothold for the rest of the family. If we restrict sponsorship so that a child *cannot* sponsor a parent, the practical incentive for "anchor babies" completely disappears overnight.

2. The fiscal reality of aging immigrants

From a purely economic perspective, older, aging parents are exactly the demographic that a sustainable immigration system should limit. Most sponsored parents arrive late in life without having paid decades of taxes into the US system. Yet, they immediately or eventually become eligible for heavily subsidized healthcare, social services, and public infrastructure. An immigration system should prioritize working-age individuals who maximize economic productivity; importing elderly dependents creates a net fiscal drain.

3. Better assimilation and fewer cultural enclaves

Restricting sponsorship to just spouses and minor children forces a structural shift toward better integration. When entire extended family networks move into the same geographic area, it naturally forms dense cultural enclaves.

Older immigrants, in particular, tend to be far more culturally entrenched and resistant to assimilation. Because they arrive later in life, they are statistically much less likely to learn English, enter the local workforce, or socially integrate outside of their immediate community. They rely entirely on their existing cultural framework.

By limiting sponsorship to spouses and children, immigrant households would be smaller and more dynamic. Spouses and younger children are far more likely to enter the workforce and the public school system, accelerating their English proficiency and adoption of local norms.

If we want an immigration system that actually prioritizes economic stability and cohesive cultural assimilation, we have to end extended family sponsorship.

You know that common line, especially from neoliberals: “Immigrants (especially illegal ones) just do the jobs nobody wants to do”?

That’s backwards. In a real market economy, the jobs “nobody wants to do” should be the ones that pay the most, not the least. Wages would rise until employers attract enough workers willing to take them.

Instead, the massive oversupply of illegal labor (much of it funneled through cartels, often under conditions of debt bondage) distorts the market. This captive pool of cheap workers lets employers keep wages artificially low while claiming “no one wants these jobs.”

Remove the distortion, and those unpleasant jobs would either pay premium wages to draw in American workers or get automated. The work nobody wants to do should command the highest pay, not the lowest.

So it looks like they're **FINALLY** looking into OPT fraud. The article says that ICE identified over 10,000 cases of OPT related fraud.

While I'm glad they're going after the OPT fraud, hopefully Joseph Edlow delivers on his promise to end OPT entirely.

This random historical fact surprised me to learn. Apparently there were black slave owners in the 1800s.

According to chatGPT:

>"Among free Black people, estimates vary by region, but roughly 1–2% of free Black households in the Deep South owned slaves."

>"About 25% of Southern white households owned at least one enslaved person."

>"Across the entire U.S., only about 1–2% of the total population of the US owned slaves directly."

So it wasn't as prevalent as white slave owners but it kind of makes you think differently about history. Like if you'd just been enslaved and were now free, why would you then participate in such a system?

chatGPT gives some explanations that some did it to protect family members. That makes perfect sense. So they only owned slaves on paper.

But then it goes on to give examples of black slave owners who very much did use slavery to become wealthy.

chatGPT writes:

>"William Ellison was born enslaved, bought his freedom, became wealthy, and eventually owned dozens of enslaved people himself. He even supported the Confederacy."

>"Antoine Dubuclet, a prosperous free man of color in Louisiana who owned a large plantation and enslaved workers."

That kind of changes the historical narrative a bit.

Plenty of feminists and mainstream libs have zero problem painting masculinity with a broad brush, and use phrases like "every guy is a potential predator" and warn women to be cautious around all men, scaring them to think normal social situations are a significant risk factor for their safety.

But then the exact same crowd does mental gymnastics to avoid noticing cultural patterns in immigrants. Point out that Afghan, Pakistani, or certain Middle Eastern/North African cohorts in Europe are massively overrepresented in grooming gangs, rape stats, and child exploitation, and suddenly you're the villain. "Racism!" "Bigotry!" "Not all immigrants!"

The data says otherwise:

• In the UK, Pakistani-heritage men were central to the Rotherham, Rochdale, and other grooming scandals involving thousands of mostly White British girls. Official reports admitted authorities looked the other way for fear of "racism."

• Sweden: Foreign-born or second-generation immigrants (heavily from MENA/Afghan/Pakistani backgrounds) account for a wildly disproportionate share of rape convictions studies putting it at 58-63% in some analyses.

• Afghan diaspora communities in Europe have documented issues with Bacha Bazi-style exploitation and attitudes toward very young girls that don't magically vanish at the border.

(For the uninformed: Bacha Bazi is the practice in Afghanistan/Pakistan where wealthy men keep adolescent and prepubescent boys as "dancing boys" for entertainment and sexual slavery)

Meanwhile, the Taliban couldn't even stamp out Bacha Bazi (they banned it but it persists among their own guys). Yet we're supposed to import large numbers with minimal scrutiny and pretend cultural compatibility is automatic?

The hypocrisy is noticable. According to liberal women: Generalizing half the planet's population by sex = enlightened sociology. Noticing stubborn cultural imports that clash with basic Western standards on consent, minors, and women's safety = racist, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, or practically Hitler.

Risk assessment isn't bigotry. Prioritizing child safety and social cohesion over open-border virtue signaling isn't "hate." If "every man" gets the side-eye treatment, don't clutch pearls when people apply the same skeptical lens to high-risk origin countries with medieval track records on sexual exploitation and pedophilia. Integration failures in the west aren't a mystery, they're a predictable feature.

I know this is going to ruffle some feathers but hear me out: if you actually look at the numbers, the original justification for Section 2 doesn’t line up with today’s reality.

---

For reference, here is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10301):

>"(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b)."

>"(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a), in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population."

---

Start with representation. Black Americans are about 13–14% of the U.S. population, and Black representation in the House is now roughly in that same range. That’s not suppression, that’s near proportional representation. On top of that, there are dozens of Black elected officials at every level of government, including Congress.

Now look at districts. There are only around 26 majority-Black congressional districts, yet there are over 60 Black members in the House. That means a large number of Black representatives are winning in majority-white or racially mixed districts. In other words, minority candidates are not dependent on specially drawn districts to get elected anymore.

That matters, because Section 2 is largely used to push for creating or maintaining majority-minority districts. But if minority candidates can (and do) win without them, then the premise behind that intervention starts to fall apart.

Also, the country isn’t what it was in 1965. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and explicitly racist voting laws are gone. We still have constitutional protections against discrimination, and courts can strike down intentional violations. The idea that the system is structurally blocking minority participation just isn’t reflected in current outcomes.

There’s also a legitimate concern that forcing race-based districting can backfire: “packing” minority voters into a small number of districts can actually reduce their overall political influence elsewhere. Now, without section 2: it will mean Democrats and Republicans now have to actually fight to win minority candidates rather than it just being a given. That's overall good for democracy.

So if representation is roughly proportional, minority candidates win across all kinds of districts, and legal protections against discrimination still exist, then what exactly is Section 2 still solving?

At some point, laws designed for a different era need to be re-evaluated against present-day evidence. And based on the data we have now, it’s reasonable to argue that Section 2 has outlived its original necessity.