Is there no circumstance where more funding would help an underperforming school? It certainly “can” make it worse in instances, but there are many reasons that a school might be underperforming. To imply that more resources would fail to help any of those problems is quite a leap.

What if the student-teacher ration is 40-1 and more funds allows for another teacher, might that make the school better?

What if the school is only open for 4 days due to low funding, might an additional day of school make it perform better?

What if a school has multiple disabled students slowing down the curriculum, but no funds to give them personal support, might more funds help it perform better?

You answered right before asking, their asylum claim must be adjudicated. If it is denied, what happens?

== Because that's how it sounds if you're not willing to actually deport anyone.==

We do and have always deported plenty of people. Obama (1st term) and Biden both deported more people than Trump did in his first term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/trump-biden-immigrants...

== we'd be better off with 0 immigrants and 0 crimes==

Thanks for saying this, it lets us know where you stand regardless of the facts shared.

This has never happened, is not happening now, and has not been proposed by any current political party. Open borders is a falsehood that has never existed in our lifetimes and nobody is proposing today. If we are going to discuss the topic, let's stick with reality.

At the same time, my ancestors who immigrated from southern Italy didn't speak English, were very uneducated, weren't considered "white", didn't have the same cultural expectations, and brought all their problems with them. All of this happened during the golden age of American progress and growth (the exact era we are trying to "make again"). I find that interesting.

==such a newcomer is well-suited to get ahead by subverting the Western societal framework, such as by taking advantage of our lax approach to property crimes==

And yet, study after study shows us that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American-born citizens [0] [1] [2] [3]. Let's move past the fake hypotheticals and discuss the known facts.

[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31440/w314...

[1] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-10/working-pa...

[2] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/05/13/is-there-a-con...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-...

There is lots of help and support available from the SBA to special tax breaks.

I think it is worth pointing out a little nuance I learned while working at SAP.

- The IT department tends to hate SAP due to its insane complexity and never-ending configurability.

- The business users (procurement, A/P, finance, etc.) tend to like it because once it is set up, it “just works” for them.

It’s important to know that the buyer and user might be different folks/departments.

Your example completely ignores the facts of history and geography in favor of simplicity and a narrative.

Australia is a former colony, France is a former colonizer. Australia is an island, France is a small part of a much larger continent. Density is considerably higher in France than Australia.

There is a large immigration blowback happening in Australia today, even with your ideal policies.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-27/have-the-political-wi...

It’s also possible that they hold a fundamentally different view than you and aren’t just naive idiots.

The phrase “destroying our country” is very charged and completely unsubstantiated in your comment. It’s almost like you are falling victim to the same type of emotional reaction you accuse others of holding.

Those people chose to come the US for the opportunity as they have throughout history, even when birth rates were high.

== Protecting and promoting families as a national policy is the right solution in my opinion==

So you agree that we don’t need to wait for more people to have kids to pay for the policy because we could just adjust our spending priorities. Glad we are on the same page.

This ignores some important facts. First, lots of immigrants already pay taxes and don’t receive government benefits. Second, we already run a continuous deficit. Third, we could choose to shift existing spending priorities to more pro-family spending.

It would cost about 1/3 of our military budget to pay for universal pre-K 3/4.

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/6/2/total-...

He has enacted much of the Project 2025 agenda, which is a right-wing, authoritarian playbook.

Seems you are only paying attention to one side if you had to look up the examples, as they are all quite recent. It doesn't seem like we are going to see eye-to-eye on things, as you completely dismiss facts, like the Democrats introducing actual legislation (multiple times) to stop gerrymandering, in order to lecture me about my own biases.

==You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.==

Trump doesn't have a charity anymore because he was found guilty of stealing money from kids. This is your party, accept it. Enjoy your day.

Except that Democrats introduced bills in 2021 and 2024 to stop partisan gerrymandering [0][1]. They also introduced a joint resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to stop the spread of money into politics [2].

Guess which party didn't support the bills. The Democrats would be fools to unilaterally stop things like raising money and gerrymandering without legislation that would also stop Republicans. Based on those actions, we can assume one party does want it and has introduced the "real solutions" you are searching.

Were you aware of these actions?

[0] 2021: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/267...

[1] 2024: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/u-s-senate-democ...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-re...

They believe in power, period.

==Six nominees received no supporting votes from any Democratic senators or independent senators who caucus with Democrats: Hegseth, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Gabbard, Kennedy, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Linda McMahon for secretary of education. ==

https://ballotpedia.org/How_senators_voted_on_Trump_Cabinet_...

No need to keep going back and forth on this as you seem to have dug in your heels.

https://sutherla.tripod.com/infsoc/computers/dec_pl.html

I'm not entirely sure, maybe they did it to give people a narrative to distribute? I just know what they are doing now, which is forced starvation and violence without warning. The exact thing people warned about before the conflict started.

Why would you forcibly starve a population of civilians if your goal wasn't to eliminate them? Why have they blocked outside journalists from entering Gaza for over 600 days if they weren't trying to hide their actions? Starving civilians in an area where you control the airspace and coastline isn't a "spiral of violence," it is a war crime.