Yeah, that's usually how it be in Congress 😮‍💨

Because America, by large, has been built upon immigrants coming over and shutting the door behind them so others can’t get their success.

We’ve done it as English colonists, we’ve done it during the Industrial Revolution, we’ve done it in the early 1900s, and we’re doing it now. It’s sadly a trend that we, as a country, never grew out of.

It's a ridiculous process to get a work visa even for skilled and educated people with money. I had a gf who had a PhD in material science with a wealthy family. She was working at a National Lab and was worried if she didn't get a permanent position there, she'd be scrambling to find a job that would give her an extension or she'd have to move back to Europe.

Apparently it used to be easier to get seasonal work permits for Mexicans wishing to work in the US, and it was common for workers to go back to Mexico after the work season. Most did not want to permanently move to the US, but preferred to return to stay with their families. Those visas were curtailed under Reagan, so they became much harder to obtain. Crossing back to Mexico became harder, so now more just cross the border and then never return. If we still had a reasonable system in place to allow temporary workers in, I’m sure we’d see less illegal crossings.

The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It's not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they're necessary. It seems like you're just looking for offense.

The Philly suburbs have a pretty influential Jewish population. Nothing like NYC, of course, but they’re politically active and probably donate a lot of money.

I would very much like to think that "Jewish" and "supportive of Israel's genocidal tactics" are much less synonymous than this comment assumes.

He didn’t say that. He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.

Whoever wrote the article is trying to speak on behalf of an entire political group called “Progressives” by claiming everyone in the group came to a unanimous decision to not discuss immigration (this isn’t true).

So the writer of the article is claiming Fetterman isn’t a part of the group of Progressives because Fetterman is willing to do his job by being diplomatic.

Progressive is often used as a blanket term that basically means that you are farther left than the Democratic party. Not that he doesn't like progress, just that he is not pursuing the end of capitalism or something in that direction if even slightly.

"Progressive" is a faction of Democrats. They aren't the only people that support progress.

I don't consider myself a progressive, because I disagree with about 30% (in very ballpark terms) of current progressive policy choices. It's not hard to imagine Fetterman feels similarly.

I absolutely disagree with Fetterman that immigration should be curtailed at all - Democrats are not a monolith. Most Democrat representatives disagree with some policy or other.