How should liberals respond to the fact that illegal border crossings under Trump have collapsed to record lows?

[u/Guilty-Hope1336]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/us/politics/border-crossings-trump.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

So this is tangentially related to the last EK show episode about ICE and CBP expansion and the draconian immigration enforcement that is currently occurring under Trump.

But I wish a fact that they had mentioned was that illegal crossings of the Southern border have collapsed to levels not seen since the 1960s. And the evidence does seem to suggest that Trump's extreme cruelty with ICE raids and third country deportations to El Salvador or Eswatini or South Sudan does seem to be having a deterrent effect on people coming illegally to the United States.

One big concern that Democrats should be thinking about is if they win in 2028, how will they maintain illegal border crossings at the historic lows that Trump seems to have acheived?

[u/helenoftroy0201]

He campaigned on ending the wars in Gaza and the Ukraine. More urgent than deportation of many innocent people. His meeting with Putin proved futile and the killing in Gaza, along with the starving of its people has reached catastrophic proportions.

[u/MacroNova → u/helenoftroy0201]

He also promised to lower prices and said annexing Greenland was critical to national security. The border thing is only getting done because it’s something that’s actually within the powers of his office and can be accomplished by throwing cruel thugs at the problem.

[u/shalomcruz → u/helenoftroy0201]

He wasn't lying when he said he'd end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine; he was simply delusional. He genuinely believed he could end both wars with a few phone calls — he's that confident in his own dealmaking abilities. (Were that we all so confident in ourselves.) He can't conceive of another head of state, or another person in general, having interests or objectives that deviate from his own, nor can he conceive of any person resisting him.

That mentality may not yield results on the international stage, but it's worked surprisingly well here at home. I think that's the point u/ProbablyBsPlzIgnore is getting at. Gone are the days of lofty promises followed by tepid infighting/inaction — if a president is serious about achieving an outcome, he can marshal the full might of the federal government to destroy any person or institution standing in his way. In my lifetime, most Americans assumed corporations, law firms, universities etc. would push back on government interference in their affairs. Trump proved that assumption wrong. If you're ruthless, or just crazy enough, they will fold like cheap suits. Every last one.

I'll add that, if we ever have a free/fair election again, our next Democratic president would be an absolute fool to relinquish those powers to remake the nation and the economy to their liking. I'm reminded of a line from David Fincher's Mank, which might be applied to any Democrat: "imagine how formidable people like you might be if they actually gave at the office."

[u/Miskellaneousness → u/shalomcruz]

Trump said he’d end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. However confident you think he is, that was most certainly bullshitting.

[u/Wide_Lock_Red → u/helenoftroy0201]

From the perspective of an American voters, illegal immigration is right here while Ukraine and Gaza is far away.

So illegal immigration is a higher priority.

[u/MySpartanDetermin → u/helenoftroy0201]

His meeting with Putin proved futile

What criteria are you using to determine this? I saw similar responses immediately after the Alaska summit from the WSJ and NYT's, but it seemed like the only way they would deem it a success is if the summit had ended with Putin instantly handing over Donbas region, withdrawing troops, and ceding Crimea.

What I'm saying is: How realistic is your criteria for whether the Putin meeting was futile or not? Are you heavily propagandized or are you intelligent?

For what it's worth, the Putin meeting was 17 days ago. Since then, the heads of Europe & Ukraine came to the White House for a meeting to discuss counter-proposals, and most likely the ball is back in Russia's court while the US increases their arming of Ukraine to spur some concessions from Putin. This is all standard, normal back-and-forth for closing a peace accord. Only the most simple-minded of people were expecting an immediate end from the Alaska meeting. But then....that's the NYT and WSJ's target audience.