Economic anxiety is not why Trump was elected.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners.  

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, perhaps they can put themselves in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners.  

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

While completely ignoring the fact that she wanted to retrain coal miners instead.

As Bill Maher once said, having to go down into a dark, toxic hole in the ground like your daddy and grandaddy isn't progress across generations. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats wanted to help retrain people so that they don't have to go back into the dark, toxic, hole in the ground. But liars like Fuzzy Bear would rather just make siht up or twist words around than actually acknowledge this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksIXqxpQNt0

I've replayed the tape and I'll partially back down on the "looking forward" part.  She did not explicitly say this, but her enthusiasm for eliminating coal jobs and coal mining is unrestrained.  She was bound and determined to put these folks out of their coal mining jobs.  And, again, what would the folks working in the Fracking industry say?

I'm 61 years old.  Many of the miners in question are 45 and up.  What can they be retrained for?  More importantly, where can they do this work?  Sure, they can come to Florida and be "retrained" for clean manufacturing jobs at $18/hour.  Will they be able to afford a $150,000 home (which is on the low end of the middle class)?  Will they be able to afford $1,200/month rent?  Assuming they could move out of state, sell their homes (assuming they own them and someone would pay "market value" for them), would they be able to support a family somewhere else on TWO (2) "retraining" incomes?  Perhaps in some parts of Florida, yes, but not in the places where industry is rising the fastest.  Is metro-Atlanta or the Research Triangle of NC any cheaper?

And once they do that, how much age discrimination will these folks face in the job market?  How about their pre-existing medical conditions; will they be a real turnoff to these employers?  Of course, they can be retrained for culinary; how many hours a week does a line cook at the Olive Garden or Outback get, and at what rate of pay?

Hillary Clinton told these people that she would offer them a "settled-for" life, with no guarantees of a job after the "retraining", no economic plan for how they'll get through the training period, no assurances that any of these folks could actually complete the training successfully, and no assurances that they would not have to leave communities that they were well-rooted in.  She gave them lip service, and it was as sweet as lip service gets from her, but it was a consolation prize at best, and something not all of them could have.  There's a reason Walmart is the largest employer in WV.

I haven't even begun here to address the issue of just how the "retrainees" would economically survive during the retraining period.  There is evidence, however, as to what their actual prospects are:  http://beltmag.com/appalachia-coding-bootcamps/

The WV coal miners heard what they needed to hear.

The PA fracking workers drew the right conclusion as to what that meant for them.

I would have been more charitable toward Hillary had she not made the "deplorables" comment, but that was the comment that, as far as I'm concerned, revealed her lack of empathy for these folks.  Obama was actually a bit empathic when he commented about "clinging to their guns and their religion"; Hillary wasn't empathic at all.  All she could see was herself being the Green Queen of America, and she had to promise SOMETHING to those who'd be devastated by the "greening".  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This is what the future of coal mining looks like: an open pit somewhere in Wyoming with a bunch of self-driving trucks and excavators being operated remotely by a handful of people.

The kind of mining that is done in West Virginia and Kentucky is economically unsustainable and that way of life is going the way of the dodo, whether the people who live there like it or not.

Hillary Clinton tried to tell them hard truths and give them help preparing for them.

Donald Trump offered them feel-good lies.

They chose the high fructose corn syrup that will kill them over the bitter medicine that could have helped them.

Trump was offering them friendlier policies toward the industry they worked in.  He wasn't lying there.  How wise those policies were/are is another issue, but his policies would be better for THEIR jobs in the short run, and their choice was not rational.

Yes, these folks passed on Hillary's "Tough Love".  Here's a secret:  "Tough Love" is tough on the lover.  How tough were these policies on Hillary?  They were policies that benefitted educational establishments and "green" industries at the expense of coal miners who could not necessarily support themselves through the "training period" and were by no means certain to find a job where they lived.  Of course; they didn't feel the (tough) love!  They didn't see the love in being forced to move from the only place they've ever known for a place where their chances of (A) being employed in their "new career" or (B) just flat-out making ends meet at a below-modest level.   ("People Are Portable" was the unspoken theme of the Clinton campaign in WV in 2016.)

The coal miners are America's throwaway people.  They have every right to be bitter at America welcoming in foreigners at liberal rates while they're being thrown away as useless.  Bill Clinton used to say, "We don't have a person to waste!", but his spouse is bent on showing America otherwise.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This is what the future of coal mining looks like: an open pit somewhere in Wyoming with a bunch of self-driving trucks and excavators being operated remotely by a handful of people.

The kind of mining that is done in West Virginia and Kentucky is economically unsustainable and that way of life is going the way of the dodo, whether the people who live there like it or not.

Hillary Clinton tried to tell them hard truths and give them help preparing for them.

Donald Trump offered them feel-good lies.

They chose the high fructose corn syrup that will kill them over the bitter medicine that could have helped them.

Trump was offering them friendlier policies toward the industry they worked in.  He wasn't lying there.  How wise those policies were/are is another issue, but his policies would be better for THEIR jobs in the short run, and their choice was not rational.

Yes, these folks passed on Hillary's "Tough Love".  Here's a secret:  "Tough Love" is tough on the lover.  How tough were these policies on Hillary?  They were policies that benefitted educational establishments and "green" industries at the expense of coal miners who could not necessarily support themselves through the "training period" and were by no means certain to find a job where they lived.  Of course; they didn't feel the (tough) love!  They didn't see the love in being forced to move from the only place they've ever known for a place where their chances of (A) being employed in their "new career" or (B) just flat-out making ends meet at a below-modest level.   ("People Are Portable" was the unspoken theme of the Clinton campaign in WV in 2016.)

The coal miners are America's throwaway people.  They have every right to be bitter at America welcoming in foreigners at liberal rates while they're being thrown away as useless.  Bill Clinton used to say, "We don't have a person to waste!", but his spouse is bent on showing America otherwise.

Fuzzy,
How ever you want to steer the conversation, you are missing the point many people are trying to convey to you ...
The coal industry is dying and will soon be gone (next 50 years I suspect). This is the real world today ... reality.

The entire planet (the developed countries, especially) are all going to greener ways of producing energy. The old ways pollute our rivers, environment and make people and other living animals sick.
Hell, the coal these individuals in West Virginia breath-in make them sick. Lung, throat, nasal and sinus sickness (and cancer) are prevalent in this industry.
You talk like "green industries" are evil, when it's just the opposite (coal is evil ... and I'm not talking about the coal miners themselves).

In all honesty, you are talking like the cartoon that was circulated in the past, where we need to hold on to manufacturing VCR recorders/players. Now how silly is that?

Oh, I get that.  If I were a coal miner, I just couldn't wait to forego a union job to work at Walmart.  Especially if my local Walmart went "green".

Trump promised the coal miners a reprieve, and he's delivered as much as possible.  That's better for them than Hillary telling them to go to Special Ed and train for a job at 1/2 your current pay that you'll have to leave home for.

Is that not really the deal here for the coal miners?

I've been critical here of retraining.  I've been waiting for folks to come up and point out some stellar successes of the concept to counter my assertions.  I'm still waiting.  Open-mindedly waiting, by the way; I know coal mining is as high risk a job as it gets.  Can someone show me a stunning success of retraining on a group basis somewhere?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

... The coal miners are America's throwaway people.  They have every right to be bitter at America welcoming in foreigners at liberal rates while they're being thrown away as useless.

What "foreigners at liberal rates" are you talking about?
Let me tell you something, if they are so bitter at "foreigners taking American jobs," I'm sure we can transport them all to Texas, California and other states where there is huge agricultural industries.
They can cultivate and gather our vegetables and fruits at the same very-low rate that many immigrants ("foreigners" as you put it) do. These people not only can sustain a living from it (very poor one at that), but also have some money left-over that they send back home to their loved ones.

This will be an easy employment transition for them, no special training will be required, and almost no "age discrimination" (as you also mentioned). Then we will see how easy and enjoyable these "bitter" people your describe, like their new jobs that they are "entitled to" over foreigners having (stealing) them.

This would fulfill your desire to punish Trump supporters in as large numbers at one time as possible.  But if push came to shove, the number of these folks that would do that if necessary would shock you.  Unlike much of Atlas, these folks are up for hard, dirty work.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Millions of voters fled the sinking ship and came into the GOP to support Donald Trump due to the fact that Donald Trump is simply a great and amazing person and would be a great and amazing President.

Go away, you are a troll.

You must be the least fun poster here not to appreciate the comic relief.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Not every Trump voter was in a tough economic situation[/u] and even some that are are not opening to vote Democratic in 2020 but his fake brand of populism do explain swings towards him in places like the Iron Range and driftless area. So called left wingers need to stop shaming Trump voters, which only plays into the GOP's hands by keeping this country as culturally divided as it is today.

A thoughtful post.

The economically anxious that were most driven to Trump were those who were/are employed in fossil fuel industries, and in other industries that were specifically targeted by Obama-Era environmental regulations.  The energy boom in PA is one reason PA swung to Trump; energy workers in fracking industries were not at all certain that more Obama environmentalism in the form of HRC would lead to a reduction in THEIR jobs.

I'm certainly not down with all of Trump's environmental policies, and he seems to get his jollies in rolling THOSE policies back, but some of them were, IMO, not defensible.  Holding up the Keystone Pipeline was not defensible; that pipeline was going to be built by someone, so why not us?  Coal was/is a dying industry, but the Obama-Era policies toward coal miners (and, to some degree, toward oil and gas workers) came off as an assault against these workers' way of life.  And the attitude of many liberals was to view these WORKERS as scum, and not just the oil execs and mine owners. 

Would you be "economically anxious" if the Presidential candidate of one of the major parties (for many, the one they had ancestral allegiance to) said, from the stump, that she looked forward to seeing lots of coal miners out of work?  That statement, more than the "Deplorables" comment, was utter poison for Hillary, but it gave hardworking Americans in the fracking industry in PA (as well as the coal miners) just exactly what was in that sewer that passes for her soul.  She cared not one whit for these hardworking folks and loathed them for what they did.  I can imagine every fracking worker listening to her statement on coal miners and wonder what she had in store for me and my coworkers.  And before anyone moralizes about Trump's diseeased soul, my "hypocritical religiosity", and such other drivel, put yourself in the shoes of these coal miners, fracking workers, and oil field workers and imaging what their assessment of Hillary's spiritual condition might be.

That is a blatant lie. You are a liar.

I mean she said it...

She never said she was looking forward to seeing coal miners being out of work. That is absolute BS.

Hillary was, however, thrilled to see the coal industry die in the name of "green".  Mourning the collateral damage didn't lessen the impact of her intended policies.  Her attitude was that these folks' jobs were being sacrificed in the name of the environment, and while this was a shame, they would just have to suck it up for the greater cause of the Greening of America.  

And I get that to a point.  Ending the production of tobacco, for example, will cause job loss and relocation, and I have sympathy for the tobacco workers (while I hate the industry; it's legal poison).  But "retraining" isn't a plan for these people's economic viability; it's a tool to say, "We left you a life preserver!".  The life preserver does little for protection against the sharks swimming in the waters they were just thrown into.

I'm also not anti-environmentalism (at least not to the degree Trump is), but look at much "environmentalism".  It's elitism on steroids.  Why is FL so anti-offshore drilling?  An enlightened electorate?  No, it's because rich, snotty coastal and barrier island property owners don't want their view of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico spoiled by oil rigs and platforms.  (And, yes, Florida's environment is more delicate than many places.)  It's a lot of NIMBY crying, and I don't have tons of sympathy for much of this, because much of it is about better-off folks afraid of their property values and not wanting to shoulder some uncomfortable social responsibility for a greater good.  (The WV coal miners get that forced on them, however.)  

I've been in situations where politicians wished to eliminate my job.  In their case, it was for the sake of rewarding private contractors.  Of course they "cared" about us, they were "thankful for our efforts" and "concerned about our families"; they would certainly arrange for "referrals" and for "linking" us up with "job opportunities".  There would even be "counseling resources" available, so I could process with a therapist instead of ranting on sites like Atlas.  Wasn't that awesome?  If you don't think so, consider why Hillary's faux empathy isn't playing well in WV.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Would some form of UBI work for coal miners who have lost their jobs due to coal industry work? I’m normally staunchly opposed to this but for workers near retirement (where retraining them would be useless), it seems like the most viable solution.

Why would we give this to coal miners when we don't do it for anyone in any other industry?

From an economic perspective, it makes no sense to give coal miners a special carveout for this. From a political perspective, why should we help coal miners when they're just going to keep voting Republican anyway?

And you opposed Obama's bailout of the American Auto Industry because . . .

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Looks like he called her a witch. That says it all. Don’t waste your time on him; he “heard” exactly what he wanted to “hear” from Hillary, so nothing you can say is going to change his mind.

Does the blue text in my post scare you?

Oops. I have Fuzzy on ignore and mistook your post for his in the quote within a quote chain. It is confusing to have two rascals with blue Florida avatars, I'm sure you can understand.

Now that she's destined to never be President, I have Hillary Clinton on ignore.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Deep down, even if they don't want to admit. Most people voted for Trump because they have an irrational distaste for immigrants.

That is over simplified, but partially correct.

In a democracy, if Americans who have a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries) see a candidate who clearly has a distaste for immigrants (from sh**thole countries), then they are free to express their democratic rights at the polling booth.

The issue is that not all Trump supporters are the same.

Others are just fed up of the over governed, overtaxed, over regulated garbage like what happened in Seattle with the homeless tax on big business.

Others are fed up with how the military is run into the ground.

Others are concerned about the economy and manufacturing.

To call all Trump supporters deplorables shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the world that actually exists.

This.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Stop.

It's true though.

Literally every interaction I've had with Trump supporters is the same. It's anecdotal, sure, but I've dealt with many, my family is made up of many, and they all seem to be a carbon copy of one another.

They hate immigrants, full stop. They try to play coy by saying they love legal immigrants, but that facade falls apart when they try to interact with someone who can't speak English. I've seen it happen over and over.

People who immigrate to the United States should speak English. Why is this considered offensive?

Because you are forcefully tearing a culture away from people, which is no different than genocide. America is an enormous country, and we have plenty of room for people to self segregate into a group based on shared values including language. This is - or should be - the beauty of America. We need to prevent contamination of the pieces that make the whole and that includes many languages.

I (as a child of immigrants myself) do think it is valuable for immigrants to learn the language of the country, though. Not because it appeases bigoted nativists but because it does genuinely make their lives easier, especially if they don’t live in a place with a large and active expat community from their homeland.

Immigration should not be a burden on taxpayers in the say that, say, the safety net is.  It's one thing to have social welfare benefits for American citizens; it's quite another to have these benefits for non-citizens, and especially for folks who are not legally in America.  And while many of the memes on Facebook and such that talk about "Illegal Aliens getting welfare" are false, they DO impact our safety net when they go to a public hospital ER or a public psychiatric unit.  Their children DO go to school here, and that adds to the education budget.  

The issue with English is simple.  Americans should not be forced to learn Spanish simply because a large percentage of its new immigrants are Spanish-speakers that don't wish to learn English.  This is a different issue than in Ellis Island years because the Ellis Island immigrants came from diverse places across the sea, while current Hispanic immigrants from Mexico come from next door.  The idea of forsaking their homeland and becoming American doesn't apply in the way it does for someone from Europe or Asia.  

Many folks are resentful of having a greater need to learn a foreign language.  They are resentful about having to provide bi-lingual services at their businesses, and they resent (in some areas) how NOT being bi-lingual puts them at a disadvantage for some jobs.  This wasn't the case prior to 1965, when immigration was based on quotas designed to ensure that the ethnic makeup of America didn't radically change.

These changes have been great for industry; they now have a base of low-wage non-unionized workers for their businesses (in the case of much of the Hispanic immigrants).  They have been good for the immigrants, who do enjoy a higher standard of living in America than they did in their country of origin.  But has it been good for American citizens that we have had large influxes of immigrants from other places who are, culturally, quite different, and whose legitimate needs have placed a burden on American taxpayers?

The American citizens who ask these sorts of questions never really get a straight answer.  They get lectures about how in diversity there is strength, without really showing how that principle applies to their situation (let alone demonstrating how it is actually true).  And, yes, they get the xenophobic reactions to evaluate, but they also get to be called xenophobes just for asking the question of "How is this good for the folks who have been citizens of this country for their whole lives?"  When they see "diversity" in other parts of the world, they see it not as part of the richness of those nations, but as a problem that needs to be overcome or managed.  Greeks and Turks on Cyprus.  Flemish and Walloons in Belgium.  The problems of unassimilated Muslims in much of old Europe.  Hindus and Muslims in India.  The world has not become the Melting Pot America tries to be.

If folks want to know the cause of much of the "anger" surrounding this issue, it is simple; folks are angry because they have to bear the costs of these non-citizens to some degree, they don't get an honest answer as to why this is either right or good for them from their government, they get lectures on diversity that range from political correctness to indoctrination, and they experience their intelligence being insulted on a number of levels.  And the ILLEGAL immigrants make that worse.  When their kids mess up, they go to jail.  When their tag light is out, they get a costly ticket from Officer Friendly, often after being pulled over with a request to search their car.  When folks crash the border, however, they seem to get to stay endlessly, without consequence.  The illegal addition to their home will come down faster than an illegal alien will be deported, even if the illegal addition to one's home is safe and functional.  

Perhaps someone here will be able to explain why immigration in the manner that we have now is good for me and for my family (as well as for my country) without mentioning how good it is for the immigrants.  

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Stop.

It's true though.

Literally every interaction I've had with Trump supporters is the same. It's anecdotal, sure, but I've dealt with many, my family is made up of many, and they all seem to be a carbon copy of one another.

They hate immigrants, full stop. They try to play coy by saying they love legal immigrants, but that facade falls apart when they try to interact with someone who can't speak English. I've seen it happen over and over.

People who immigrate to the United States should speak English. Why is this considered offensive?

Because you are forcefully tearing a culture away from people, which is no different than genocide. America is an enormous country, and we have plenty of room for people to self segregate into a group based on shared values including language. This is - or should be - the beauty of America. We need to prevent contamination of the pieces that make the whole and that includes many languages.

I (as a child of immigrants myself) do think it is valuable for immigrants to learn the language of the country, though. Not because it appeases bigoted nativists but because it does genuinely make their lives easier, especially if they don’t live in a place with a large and active expat community from their homeland.

Immigration should not be a burden on taxpayers in the say that, say, the safety net is.  It's one thing to have social welfare benefits for American citizens; it's quite another to have these benefits for non-citizens, and especially for folks who are not legally in America.  And while many of the memes on Facebook and such that talk about "Illegal Aliens getting welfare" are false, they DO impact our safety net when they go to a public hospital ER or a public psychiatric unit.  Their children DO go to school here, and that adds to the education budget.  

The issue with English is simple.  Americans should not be forced to learn Spanish simply because a large percentage of its new immigrants are Spanish-speakers that don't wish to learn English.  This is a different issue than in Ellis Island years because the Ellis Island immigrants came from diverse places across the sea, while current Hispanic immigrants from Mexico come from next door.  The idea of forsaking their homeland and becoming American doesn't apply in the way it does for someone from Europe or Asia.  

Many folks are resentful of having a greater need to learn a foreign language.  They are resentful about having to provide bi-lingual services at their businesses, and they resent (in some areas) how NOT being bi-lingual puts them at a disadvantage for some jobs.  This wasn't the case prior to 1965, when immigration was based on quotas designed to ensure that the ethnic makeup of America didn't radically change.

These changes have been great for industry; they now have a base of low-wage non-unionized workers for their businesses (in the case of much of the Hispanic immigrants).  They have been good for the immigrants, who do enjoy a higher standard of living in America than they did in their country of origin.  But has it been good for American citizens that we have had large influxes of immigrants from other places who are, culturally, quite different, and whose legitimate needs have placed a burden on American taxpayers?

The American citizens who ask these sorts of questions never really get a straight answer.  They get lectures about how in diversity there is strength, without really showing how that principle applies to their situation (let alone demonstrating how it is actually true).  And, yes, they get the xenophobic reactions to evaluate, but they also get to be called xenophobes just for asking the question of "How is this good for the folks who have been citizens of this country for their whole lives?"  When they see "diversity" in other parts of the world, they see it not as part of the richness of those nations, but as a problem that needs to be overcome or managed.  Greeks and Turks on Cyprus.  Flemish and Walloons in Belgium.  The problems of unassimilated Muslims in much of old Europe.  Hindus and Muslims in India.  The world has not become the Melting Pot America tries to be.

If folks want to know the cause of much of the "anger" surrounding this issue, it is simple; folks are angry because they have to bear the costs of these non-citizens to some degree, they don't get an honest answer as to why this is either right or good for them from their government, they get lectures on diversity that range from political correctness to indoctrination, and they experience their intelligence being insulted on a number of levels.  And the ILLEGAL immigrants make that worse.  When their kids mess up, they go to jail.  When their tag light is out, they get a costly ticket from Officer Friendly, often after being pulled over with a request to search their car.  When folks crash the border, however, they seem to get to stay endlessly, without consequence.  The illegal addition to their home will come down faster than an illegal alien will be deported, even if the illegal addition to one's home is safe and functional.  

Perhaps someone here will be able to explain why immigration in the manner that we have now is good for me and for my family (as well as for my country) without mentioning how good it is for the immigrants.  

You forget that illegal immigrants are taxpayers themselves. They pay sales taxes. They pay property taxes. They have payroll and income taxes deducted from their paychecks using fake SSNs. (And unlike Americans of their income level, they will likely not get all or more of that money back because they likely do not file returns for fear of being found out.)

Explain how immigration is hurting you and your family. What is there that you want to do that you can't do because of immigrants? You want to go work in a slaughterhouse in rural Iowa for $8 an hour? Go up there and have a blast! You probably won't last as long at it as your immigrant coworkers, in no small part because you know you have better things to do and have been given tremendous opportunities in life to do them.

Sales taxes aren't actually paid by consumers; they're paid by business owners who pass the cost onto us and itemize it because we can itemize it.  And in most states, the basic essentials (food, medicine) is not taxed.

I'll explain to you how ILLEGAL immigration hurts me and my family.

Illegal immigration affects the quality of healthcare in my community.  Illegal immigrants utilize local hospitals, and their services are paid for by funds that are reserved for indigent citizens and those lawfully here.  It means that the indigent person at the ER gets crappier treatment toward the end of the fiscal year.  When an illegal immigrant gives birth to a child in this country, that child has birthright citizenship (leading to taxpayer-funded legal costs down the road) and the birth is often paid for by Medicaid and other state-sponsored health plans (such as Medi-Cal in CA).  More expenses passed onto CITIZENS and LAWFUL ALIENS who are taxpayers.

Illegal immigration affects my auto insurance rates.  Illegal immigrants drive cars with no license, uninsured, and get into accidents.  There is no insurance mechanism (other than one's own insurance) to pay for the damage and the injuries inflicted.

Illegal immigration affects the crime rate in my community.  Illegal aliens are, to no small degree, fugitives.  They cannot readily work, and because of this, are more likely to resort to criminal activity to support themselves.  When they steal from Walmart, they boost my prices.  (Yes, I'm well aware American citizens steal from Walmart.) 

Illegal aliens impact our schools.  Children of illegal aliens that are here illegally themselves often know little or no English, and require special ESL courses to keep pace.  This costs money, and it's money that would be spent in other ways without illegal immigration. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150226084427.htm

The children of illegal aliens are more likely to present behavioral problems in the public school than other children.  (Is this really hard to believe?)  This requires schools to spend money on behavioral and psychological remediation both for the sake of the kids and the safety and well-being of the schoolchildren as a whole.  And THIS isn't cheap; if schools don't expand these services, then services that are already strained that were meant for the children of folks lawfully here are stretched even further.

Please don't insult my intelligence. 

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Stop.

It's true though.

Literally every interaction I've had with Trump supporters is the same. It's anecdotal, sure, but I've dealt with many, my family is made up of many, and they all seem to be a carbon copy of one another.

They hate immigrants, full stop. They try to play coy by saying they love legal immigrants, but that facade falls apart when they try to interact with someone who can't speak English. I've seen it happen over and over.

There's a difference between your average Joe Trump Republican and someone who voted for Obama and/or Democrats in the past and didn't vote or voted for Trump in 2016.

This.

When you think about it, it's kind of obvious.