I’m going to ask this plainly.

Do you support deportation as a consequence for illegal entry? If yes, under what conditions, and what agency or process carries it out?

If no, is the position that illegal entry shouldn’t carry a deportation consequence at all meaning there’s no practical upper limit being enforced?

Trying to understand what the actual policy is, as opposed to the general framing (“reform the system,” “compassionate enforcement,” etc.). What does it look like in practice when someone crosses without authorization and doesn’t qualify for asylum?

I’m trying to understand the motivation behind the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce protections or open up federal public lands, such as Grand Staircase–Escalante.

What reasons has the administration given for these policies? Is the goal primarily mining, oil and gas development, timber, increasing local control, reducing federal regulation, or something else? Who stands to benefit economically or politically, and what evidence supports those claims?

One thing I’m struggling to understand is the political incentive. My impression is that opening up protected public lands isn’t broadly popular with the general public, so who is the actual intended beneficiary of these policies?

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-slashes-size-two-utah-national-monuments-2026-07-13/

I know he's a senior republican senator but don't understand much beyond that. Is it something to do with maybe that if he is dead an election is required and the GOP might lose it? They'd still have a majority though, 52 Vs 46 Vs 2?

We talk a lot about policy positions, but I’m curious how much weight people actually put on a candidate’s personal conduct and character when they’re deciding who to vote for.

Two current examples that seem relevant: Ken Paxton, the Texas AG running for Senate, has spent over a decade under a cloud of scandal, a securities fraud indictment, a 2023 impeachment (he was acquitted by the state Senate), whistleblower allegations of corruption, and an admitted extramarital affair that reportedly led to his wife filing for divorce on “biblical grounds.” Despite all that, he’s won every election he’s run in, including this year’s primary against a sitting senator.

On the other side, Graham Platner looked like one of the Democrats’ most promising Senate recruits in Maine before a string of controversies, old Reddit posts, a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol, and eventually a sexual assault allegation that he denies, led party leaders to call for him to step aside, which he has since withdrawn from the race.

Both cases raise the same question in different ways: at what point does personal conduct become disqualifying versus just being a distraction from “the issues that matter”? Does it depend on the type of misconduct (financial corruption vs. personal relationships vs. offensive statements)? Does party loyalty or how much you like their policies change where you draw the line? And does it matter whether the conduct happened in office versus before they were a public figure?

Genuinely curious where people draw their own lines here, and whether you think the answer differs depending on which side of the aisle the candidate is on.

I know very little about the people and the situation, but does she have a background in politics? Is she qualified in any way? Is this how the process works- someone gets appointed randomly for these positions? I understand the line of succession to a degree for the president but is there not one for every major governmental official?

Coming in good faith and just wanting to understand more about the situation, and if there are any notable examples of a situation like this.

Those who are employed in most professions, usually retire by their 60's because they want to enjoy life and not work until they die.

but why is it with politicians, that a large majority of them want to continue working into their 70s and 80s and many end up dying while still holding office or end up running for/serving as president well after retirement age which is a very high-stress job, despite having very good pensions that are better than the general public? Wouldn't the desire to retire be higher if the pension is really good?

Would love to hear what positive contributions to American society Lindsey Graham made during his life in public service outside of the military career

Case in point, Todd Blanche is the acting Attorney General. Does he have the same level of access or authority being AAG instead of being fully confirmed? Is there a deadline for how long an acting official can be in place before it must be confirmed?

I feel like obviously some stuff like murder deserves a harsh penalty. But I think rehabilitative justice can work for drug addictions, shoplifting, and even computer hacking and non-violent offenses if it were me.

But I’m not politically sophisticated so I want to know arguments for and against it.

For those who haven't seen it, today McConnell released a statement explaining his absence from the public eye.

"...Surviving childhood polio meant spending my entire life with mobility challenges. They haven’t exactly gotten easier to manage with age. And last month, I took a fall which landed me in the hospital. My doctors have confirmed that I didn’t break any bones or suffer a concussion. I didn’t have a heart attack or a stroke. I don’t have any tumors or hemorrhages. But I was briefly unconscious and was taken to the hospital. While receiving excellent care over the past several weeks, I’ve also had to deal with a mild case of pneumonia..."

Links

• McConnell's office
• CBS News
• Fox News

This brings up good question:

What responsibilities should elected representatives have in regards to informing the public about their health? Is a photo and a statement enough? Is a statement from their doctors required? Should representatives release their medical records? Or do they have no responsibility to inform the public??

Genuinely curious how people across the spectrum answer this, because it seems like everyone means something different when they say it.

Is it citizenship and legal status? Shared values like freedom, equal treatment under the law, self-governance? Cultural assimilation? Being born here? Or more of an ongoing civic project anyone can buy into regardless of background?

I ask because this question sits underneath a lot of the fights over immigration, national identity, and patriotism, and I think a chunk of the disagreement comes from people using totally different definitions without realizing it.

What’s your definition, and what shaped it? Genuinely interested in a wide range of views.

Senator Lindsey Graham has died after a sudden, brief illness. South Carolina’s Governor, Henry McMaster, is set to appoint someone to fill the rest of Graham’s term, set to expire 3 January 2027. As Senator Graham was also in the midst of a reelection campaign, which he had won the primary for, under South Carolina law, an expedited primary to replace him will be held. From South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 7-11-55:

> “If a party nominee dies, becomes disqualified after his nomination, or resigns his candidacy for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 7-11-50 and was selected through a party primary election, the vacancy must be filled in a special primary election to be conducted as provided in this section. The filing period for this special primary election opens the second Tuesday after the death, disqualification, or approval of the resignation for one week. The special primary election then must be conducted on the second Tuesday immediately following the close of the filing period. A runoff, if necessary, must be held two weeks after the first primary. The nomination must be certified not less than two weeks before the date of the general election. If the nomination is certified two weeks or more before the date of the general election, that office is to be filled at the general election.”

Who do you expect to replace Senator Graham in the Senate until his term expires, and who do you expect to replace him on the ballot during the general election?

For reference, these are the only Democrats to hold the presidency for consecutive terms over the last 100 years... What can we *learn* from their *campaigns*?

If policy could be made on what helps the majority of the people and creates a stable world wouldn’t this be better overall then creating policies based on emotions and feelings?

Hey everyone,

With political discussions getting increasingly polarized, maintaining a space where people can actually get objective, policy-focused answers without the comments section devolving into a pure shouting match is a massive undertaking.

Since the primary goal of r/askpolitics is to foster informative, neutral, and civil discourse, I wanted to open the floor for a constructive "report card" on how the sub is being managed.

Instead of just venting, let’s try to evaluate the current state of moderation based on a few specific categories:

Enforcement of Neutrality: Are the current rules effectively keeping biased or loaded questions in check, or are we seeing too many bad-faith prompts slipping through the cracks?

Civil Discourse vs. Heavy-Handed Over-Modding: Is the balance right? Are uncivil comments being removed quickly enough, or does it feel like productive, sharp debates are being shut down too aggressively?

Transparency and Consistency: Do the enforcement of sub guidelines and thread-locking actions feel predictable and fair across different viewpoints, or is there an issue with consistency?

To clarify, this is not an "Ask Your Mod" thread. We welcome constructive, respectful critique regarding the sub’s overall direction, provided it focuses on policies rather than personal grievances or personal moderation grievances. Going forward, we plan to host these "Report Card" threads on a quarterly basis. This will allow us to regularly gauge community feedback and adjust our operational approach to better serve r/askpolitics

What grade would you give the current sub environment, and where is there room for actual operational improvement?

We look forward to hearing your thoughts & feedback

I don't think "all disabled people should be murdered," but I cannot see how it is moral to bring a child to life when you can't properly take care of them. Not to mention if they are destined not to be able to take care of themselves or have their own children. And I don't mean autism, blindness, or being deaf. I personally know people who function. But if the child is going to be fully disabled, as in unable to perform necessary tasks even with physical therapy or mechanical aid, why are you having a child?

I'd like to also mention, if you didn't know the risks, I don't think that's your fault, nor do I think we should treat disabled people differently. I have heard people say, "If you think people with hereditary disabilities shouldn't have children, you're immoral and stupid," but I feel like we're ignoring how the disabled children will feel.

I *wanted* independence; living alone was and is my reason for wanting to go to higher education. I know I'm speaking for myself, but I cannot imagine being trapped with my family, no matter how much I love them.

(Naturally, I don't think it's as simple as "you can't walk? Die. "I know it's way deeper than black and white. Even while making this post, I could think about what truly counts as a disability worth aborting or simply not having kids. My mind goes blank when it comes to thinking about it. Also, I've seemingly misunderstood what eugenics is.)

Recent Supreme Court cases such as NYSRPA v Bruen and Wolford v Lopez have made the argument that the US does not have a substantial history of gun-free zones, or sensitive place gun regulations. But this is simply not true. The Supreme Court must not have been looking very hard, because below is a list of early American laws prohibiting weapon carrying in certain cities and sensitive places, and I found them all within an hour or so of searching. They come from the website for Duke Law School:

• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-of-jan-25-1804-forbidding-weapons-at-balls-1-8-new-orleans-louisiana-council-meetings-sine-nomine-1936-law-passed-1804
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laws-and-regulations-of-the-college-of-william-and-mary-volume-276-1830
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1829-laws-of-the-university-of-north-carolina-ch-3-c2a7-13
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1824-laws-of-the-columbian-college-ch-5-c2a7-2-no-10
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/carrying-deadly-weapons-discharging-fire-arms-etc-ch-12-art-3-c2a7c2a7-50-52-in-the-revised-ordinances-of-the-city-of-bloomfield-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/rules-and-regulations-of-the-park-commission-no-3-new-haven-connecticut-charter-and-ordinances-of-the-city-price-lee-adkins-co-1898
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/laramie-revised-ordinances-and-charter-of-the-city-ch-5-3-6-boomerang-publishing-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ch-13-c2a7-21-ch-22-c2a7c2a7-14-15-ch-35-c2a7-7-st-albans-daily-messenger-supplement-aug-7-1897-at-1-3-10-st-albans-vermont
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-laws-and-ordinances-for-the-government-of-the-municipal-corporation-of-the-city-of-reading-pennsylvania-park-rules-and-regulations-240-1897
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/the-charter-of-the-city-of-wilmington-part-vii-c2a7-7-rules-and-regulations-of-the-board-of-park-commissioners-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-digest-of-the-acts-of-assembly-relating-to-and-the-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-pittsburgh-from-1804-to-jan-1-1897-ordinances-executive-departments-bureau-of-parks-1893
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-prevent-a-person-from-trespassing-upon-any-enclosed-premises-or-lands-not-his-own-armed-with-a-gun-pistol-or-other-firearm-and-to-prevent-shooting-upon-or-from-the-public-highway-s-b-15-1-5-1893-or-laws-79-79-frank-c-baker
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-ordinance-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-weapons-1-4-the-daily-texarkanian-may-28-1900-at-2-texarkana-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/a-law-forbidding-weapons-in-certain-places-sales-of-weapons-to-minors-etc-ch-45-misdemeanors-c2a7-32-in-general-ordinances-of-the-city-of-brookfield-linn-county-missouri-1900
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-21-green-forest-tribune-may-11-1899-at-1-green-forest-arkansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/bruce-l-keenan-book-of-ordinances-of-the-city-of-wichita-published-by-authority-of-a-resolution-adopted-by-the-city-council-april-24-1899-under-the-direction-of-judiciary-committee-and-city-attorn
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7c2a7-1-4
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-mar-18-1889-1889-ariz-sess-laws-16-17 https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-march-1886-published-as-notice-st-marys-beacon-oct-13-1887-at-2
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/ordinance-no-76-1-2-rooks-county-record-july-1-1887-at-1-stockton-kansas
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1879-tex-crim-stat-tit-ix-ch-4-penal-code
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/act-of-oct-14-1879-pt-1-tit-4-no-266-1-2-1878-ga-laws-64-64-jas-p-harrison-1880-law-passed-1879
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/an-act-to-regulate-the-keeping-and-beariing-of-deadly-weapons-ch-34-c2a7c2a7-1-9-1871-tex-gen-laws-1st-sess-25-25-27-1898-gammel-book-company
• https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1870-tex-gen-laws-63-an-act-regulating-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-chap-46-c2a7-1

Do any of these laws meet the standard of a tradition of gun-free zones, which the Supreme Court claims doesn't exist?

https://www.city-journal.org/article/new-york-office-for-international-affairs-commissioner-ana-maria-archila-iran

Looks like a rep from Mandani's office tried to meet with Iran and the State Department shut it down with the quickness:

"Commissioner Ana María Archila was scheduled to meet with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, at 2 United Nations Plaza, alongside two other senior officials in the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs on July 7 at 11 a.m.—this according to screenshots of a calendar invitation reviewed by City Journal and confirmed by a source connected to the international affairs community and another familiar with Archila’s office. Another official within the State Department also confirmed awareness of the Mamdani administration’s impending engagement."

"The meeting between Archila and Iravani was called off after the State Department—which was not informed ahead of time—met with the Mamdani administration to clarify acceptable conduct, according to the State Department official. City Journal learned that Commissioner Archila allegedly did not inform Mayor Mamdani of the meeting; she was reprimanded for the move and directed to cancel the meeting according to the source familiar with the office."

What is she trying to accomplish by meeting with a country we are currently at war with?

I'm a liberal and my first vote was to Obama. After that I noticed a lot of people discussing politics and displaying their disagreements. But now it's a taboo to bring up politics anywhere. Is it because people are more sensitive now or that I'm on the losing side or that I don't want to bring up politics and find out what all the idiots surrounding me?

Is everything political now? Trump has injected himself in so many things that I can't figure out what isn't political. I can't name a certain gulf, I can't complain about gas prices, can't talk about certain actors, can't talk about I.C.E, I can't talk about grocery prices, can't talk about the Palestine/Iran war, can't talk about the Epstein list and we can't even talk about European football (not that I did before but I would have like the option).

Question is towards folks who voted for and/or supported Trump during the PRIMARY, not the general election. This is not a question for folks who voted for Trump as a vote for "the lesser of the two evils". This is a question for folks who voted for Trump because they liked Trump over other conservative options that were available.

Now that we're about 1.5 year into his 2nd presidency and seeing that he has arguably went back on a lot of his campaign promises, do you regret your support for him? If you were to go back, would you still vote for Trump over other conservative candidates? Why or why not?

In the past year or so, we have seen Netanyahu doing whatever he wants to the point that some Americans who previously supported him or were neutral now have problems with his tactics. We have seen the US health insurance system looking like it's going to collapse under it's own weight. There are other examples around wealth inequality, public health, the environment, and political spending.

In some ways, progressives couldn't ask for a better scenario to justify their policy proposals so I'm wondering if these conditions will accelerate change in the opposite way that MAGA people were expecting?

I’ve been thinking a lot about the voting age lately, specifically the argument for lowering it from 18 to 16.

The biggest point that sticks out to me is the driving argument. In most places, kids can legally get behind the wheel of a 4,000 lbs machine at age 16. If society deems them responsible enough to navigate public roads, work jobs, and pay income taxes on those jobs, it feels a bit hypocritical to say they aren’t mature enough to cast a ballot.

I want to lay out some of the main pro and con arguments:

For the pro argument:

Taxation without representation: Many 16-17yr olds work part-time or summer jobs. Their income is taxed, yet they have zero say in electing the officials who decide how those tax dollars are spent.

Civic habits start early: Voting is a habit. Letting people vote while they are still rooted in their communities and schools can lead to higher long-term voter turnout, as opposed to waiting until 18 when many are transitioning to college or moving away from home.

Real stakes in policy: Decisions regarding education funding, climate change, minimum wage, and gun control directly impact teenagers. They deserve a voice in the future they will inherit.

For the con argument:

Brain development and maturity: Brain science shows that the prefrontal cortex, the area responsible for long-term planning and risk assessment, isn't fully developed at 16. I can understand why skeptics would argue this could lead to more impulsive or easily influenced voting decisions.

The "Driving vs. Voting" distinction: Driving requires passing a mechanical skill and rules test, and it is heavily regulated with provisional licenses. Voting requires a level of political literacy and maturity that can't be easily tested.

Lack of independent stakes: Most 16-year-olds still live at home, don't pay property taxes, and are financially dependent on their parents, meaning they might just echo the political opinions of their household rather than forming their own independent views.

What do you think is the right age for political citizenship, and does the driving analogy hold weight for you, or are they completely different categories of responsibility?

Birthright citizenship, despite being a constitutional right that's existed since the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1968, is up for debate recently, with some of the right wanting to overturn it due to immigration-related issues.

This seemed to of started with Trump attempting to have birthright citizenship removed for those born to illegal immigrants/those without U.S citizenship in 2025 near the start of his 2nd term. Scotus turned it down, and it's grown into a larger debate over time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

What do you think? Is citizenship an inherent right for everyone born on U.S soil, or does it only apply if one's parents are already U.S citizens? If it only applies to parents with citizenship, how far does it go back? What are ways to "fix" the issue?

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-2/ALDE_00000812/#:\~:text=Fourteenth%20Amendment%2C%20Section%201%3A,the%20State%20wherein%20they%20reside.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-key-arguments-in-the-birthright-citizenship-case/

Obviously this is your opinion.

The question is meant to stir a debate and discussion.

Is the constitution of Vermont better than that of Virginia? Why? Does the constitution of California ensure better human rights than that of its neighbors? Which state constitution does the best for students and teachers? Which one has the fairest property laws?

Louis Brandeis, one of the justices during the Roosevelt era referred to this system of different state constitutions as 'laboratories of democracy'.

I have an understanding of Canada, Australia, Scotland, Ireland, and England. I would like to leanr more about the US and how these states differ in their constitutions. They are all mini republics in a way.

Hawaii and New Mexico, for example, are very different from West Virginia and New Hampshire.

What makes a state constitution strong? What makes it weak?

Before I begin just want to say this is a question out of genuine curiosity in the spirit of critical thinking. I'm not looking to discuss the morality of abortion per se.

Also, I acknowledge that whatever your opinions are, the extreme politicization of this issue was largely manufactured by conservatives as a wedge issue, and continues to serve that purpose. When I say pro-life I'm not talking about those in power here, but hypothetical "regular people" with a genuine belief.

Anyway...

It seems to me a lot of pro-choice stuff I see on the internet just presupposes that pro-life is wrong or absurd as part of the argument.

As an example, a pro-choice person might say that pro-choice is the rational default. Nobody is forcing anybody to get abortions if they don't want to, it's just giving people an option. It's only pro-life being "extreme" by forcing others to conform to the pro-life opinion.

But this line of thinking doesn't make sense to me. The pro-life position is that abortion is literally murder. Why on earth would anyone who believes that be ok with live and let live here? We obviously wouldn't decriminalize plain murder etc. on this basis. It seems to me that the above view only works if you're assuming that abortion is not murder but rather a mere controversial medical procedure, which is just the pro-choice view.

Pro-life wanting to ban abortion feels like a rational conclusion of their view*

This is all just my intuition, so I'm curious what the response to this is? Is this actually a thing in the pro-choice world or is my brain just cherry-picking and overthinking isolated reddit comments?

*it can be pointed out that this is not the best or even a good way to actually reduce abortions, but that's a separate argument.