The Hypocrisy Gap in Immigration Attitudes
Public opinion on immigration often splits in two: people support deporting "illegal immigrants" in the abstract, but oppose deporting the specific ones they know personally—like the gardener, the neighbor, the pastor, or the hardworking family.
Most people who say they want closed borders aren't actually for open borders. Many of the protesters in places like Minnesota likely aren't demanding unrestricted entry—they're simply reacting against Trump (which is understandable given the polarization).Yet if someone truly wants controlled borders and effective enforcement (via ICE or a similar agency), they should be prepared for deportations that will inevitably include sympathetic cases: the long-term resident earning U.S.-level wages, the Chinese Christian family risking everything on the dangerous trek north, or the Honduran group holding prayer meetings and religious services along the journey.In my view, it can be more cruel to block someone who has spent their life savings to reach the border than to deport someone who has already built a life here. Loss aversion makes the latter feel worse, but the former is often the harsher outcome in reality.A Quick Aside on Politics and PersonnelTrump, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan (assuming Bovino refers to a similar figure), and others should arguably be removed from immigration roles if they publicly comment on specific deaths (like those of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good) before trials conclude. Statements like that risk alienating voters and undermining broader support for increased deportations—the very goal they claim to pursue.Bottom LineAmericans are remarkably optimistic about their own circumstances while pessimistic about the nation as a whole. The same selective empathy applies to immigration: deport "them" in theory, but not the ones we see as individuals.The U.S. is still a remarkable country—capable, in my outlier opinion, of absorbing very large numbers of immigrants annually. A realistic compromise might be a large-scale guest-worker program, but that's a separate debate.In the meantime, for some counter-doom perspective, check out the "Doomslayer" compilation: 1,084 Reasons the World Isn’t Falling Apart from Human Progress. It's a useful reminder that things aren't collapsing as fast as the headlines suggest.What do you think—does this "I like my X, but hate the category" pattern explain more political contradictions than we usually admit?
- Am honest friend once described himself as "a Republican in theory, but a Democrat in practice." He wants welfare cuts... just not for people he knows. He favors harsher punishment for criminals... except for the prisoners he sometimes works with, for whom he wants more mercy.
- Another friend was genuinely upset when his long-time gardener—a pastor in a Spanish-language church—was deported. Yet when asked if he supports open borders, he said no.
- Drugs — Strong support for drug laws in general, but reluctance to turn in friends or family who use.
- Public schools — "The schools are failing," except "my kids' school is good."
- Congress — "Congress is terrible," but "my representative is doing a fine job."
- Personal vs. national outlook — Recent Gallup polls show ~81% of Americans are satisfied with their own lives, while only ~20% feel the same about the direction of the country.
- Healthcare costs — About 57% are satisfied with what they personally pay for healthcare, but only ~16–20% are satisfied with U.S. healthcare costs overall.
- Speeding laws — Broad support for the rules, but widespread frustration with speed cameras that enforce them.
Most people who say they want closed borders aren't actually for open borders. Many of the protesters in places like Minnesota likely aren't demanding unrestricted entry—they're simply reacting against Trump (which is understandable given the polarization).Yet if someone truly wants controlled borders and effective enforcement (via ICE or a similar agency), they should be prepared for deportations that will inevitably include sympathetic cases: the long-term resident earning U.S.-level wages, the Chinese Christian family risking everything on the dangerous trek north, or the Honduran group holding prayer meetings and religious services along the journey.In my view, it can be more cruel to block someone who has spent their life savings to reach the border than to deport someone who has already built a life here. Loss aversion makes the latter feel worse, but the former is often the harsher outcome in reality.A Quick Aside on Politics and PersonnelTrump, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Tom Homan (assuming Bovino refers to a similar figure), and others should arguably be removed from immigration roles if they publicly comment on specific deaths (like those of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good) before trials conclude. Statements like that risk alienating voters and undermining broader support for increased deportations—the very goal they claim to pursue.Bottom LineAmericans are remarkably optimistic about their own circumstances while pessimistic about the nation as a whole. The same selective empathy applies to immigration: deport "them" in theory, but not the ones we see as individuals.The U.S. is still a remarkable country—capable, in my outlier opinion, of absorbing very large numbers of immigrants annually. A realistic compromise might be a large-scale guest-worker program, but that's a separate debate.In the meantime, for some counter-doom perspective, check out the "Doomslayer" compilation: 1,084 Reasons the World Isn’t Falling Apart from Human Progress. It's a useful reminder that things aren't collapsing as fast as the headlines suggest.What do you think—does this "I like my X, but hate the category" pattern explain more political contradictions than we usually admit?
