Seems like republicans are boxed in. If they block an immigration bill because they want to deny Biden a win their complaining about the border will lose most of it's impact as an issue based on massive hypocrisy. If they pass legislation, it helps Biden. Guess they have to hope for voters short memories. Democrats need a spokesman on republican immigration hypocrisy.
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
150 points (88.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3903 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Since when do Republicans care about hypocrisy? Mitch might be acting as the voice of reason today, but he was the one who refused to let Obama's last SC pick even have a vote, because he knew it would pass, while rushing Trump's last pick through before the election.
You'll never explain that to a moderate...
Their ideology stopped making sense decades ago, so by now the supporters who are left can't be rational.
If they were, they wouldn't be "moderates". And their identity is wrapped up in that, so they can't. No matter what a Republican or a progressive says should be done, the modern moderate will declare both are bad and the obvious choice is halfway between them.
I can't imagine they aren't going to try and send him a bill with some garbage in it.
The Senate made an agreement. In order for the House to pass it, they can't change it much. If they do put garbage in it, it'll never get to the President's desk.
If they do put garbage in it, it'll never get to the President's desk.
Maybe
No maybe. Won't happen. The upper camber doesn't back off their agreements.
More or less, if the Senate makes any changes it'll have to go back to the House and start again.
Well it goes to conference. That's when Senators and representatives get together and try reconciliation. But this one won't get that far. First, it has to get through the Senate despite Trump. Then it has to get through the speaker to put it on the floor. Once that happens, if it happens, I wouldn't expect it to be modified
They won't vote for the legislation. Trump told them not to. And the base won't blame them or see any hypocrisy, because it's tied to $ for Ukraine. That's their "reason" and the base is in total agreement that the US shouldn't be funding Ukraine.
Never underestimate the power of right-wing propaganda. We have millions of Americans who now think Putin is a glorious world savior fighting against the evil Nazi Ukrainians.
Voters, and most Americans at large, have very short attention spans.
Dems have plenty of spokespeople. All 50 millionish of us. Grassroots is how we fight.
Otherwise it's just a talking head, or a message from some media org, all of which have lost a great deal of trust. But an individual showing someone something like how to use ground.news to see a bigger picture is a bit of a different story, it's personal. You can see their eyes as you talk to them.
If this is the kind of legislation that gets you to door knock and phone bank I really don't want to know you
e; I mean the harassment of migrants and asylum seekers, I'm 110% on board with giving Ukraine everything they want because fuck Putin
I'm not a single issue voter. If I was, my main issue would be fighting against the rise of modern fascism in the US. But even that is not my one, single issue, I try to look at and weigh them all.
Sounds like we have a lot in common. I guess I would just say that I am strongly concerned that rhetoric and legislation like this impedes that fight against rising fascism.
The Russo-Ukrainian War is that very battle gone hot and bloody. I see Gaza as a distraction from it that we can do very little to influence.
I'm a history guy, so I see this all from a very big perspective, where it becomes impossible to keep ones hands perfectly clean. I think the best way to help Gazans is actually, very counter-intuitively, to help Netanyahu, since it keeps him from being backed into a corner and forced to adopt even more brutal, dictatorial, but also slower methods to accomplish his own personal goals, which he will pursue regardless.
If we could save Gazans somehow I would be in favor of that, but simply stopping the flow of weapons would not do that. There are many ways to ethnically cleanse, and we simply cannot change that. So to me, it's weighing between 100k Gazan casualties and 1 million Gazan casualties.
Unless we took hostile action against Israel, but that would have its own consequences. It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place with no good answers. We simply cannot save them, not at the current moment.
Even the UN resolution was just calling for a cease fire. It wasn't an actual, enforced cease fire, where you go and make it happen through coercion or force. And even if we did, hamas would still be there, still preying on Gazans in pursuit of their own goals.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is just pure ugly. Personally I support a rescinding of our treaties with Israel, but we can't do that during a war without further destabilizing the globe by demonstrating we will not honor our treaty obligations.
Yeah, as far as Israel and Gaza goes, I would at least contemplate hostile action against the Israeli government, but our history of occupying and nation building tells me that wouldn't work out, so what I really want is for us to either give Israel an ultimatum to shape up or we end our allegiance or just end it straightaway (though I do think there's some value in maintaining the reputation of being a country that stands by its treaties and that would take a hit with the second approach). Ultimately, I think they need a one state solution that's secular and gives all Jews and Muslims and everyone else equality before the law regardless of their religious beliefs, but I think any kind of movement to make that happen is going to need to come from the people living there.
I also want us to massively streamline the processes of obtaining asylum and permanent residency and tell every Palestinian (and, while we're at it, Uyghur, Iranian dissident, Saudi dissident, Russian dissident, and anyone else who's being persecuted) - if you can make it to the US you're welcome to build a new life here. The war in Iraq thoroughly convinced me that spreading human rights by force is almost always counter productive, but I think we can still do a lot to protect human rights just by promoting asylum.
Huh?
What part confused you?
After the deal of trust part.
Ah. Ground News is a website that compiles different news sources from all over the world, so people can see outside of their own news bubbles.
Ah, that makes more sense. I assumed it was some kind of weird typo.
With respect, bullshit.
"Closing the border" is a meaningless statement where the southern US border is concerned. More than a thousand miles of border, much of it sparsely inhabited, and he's going to secure it all?
Sure.
So just because we can't solve ALL of a problem doesn't mean we shouldn't solve SOME of the problem?
"No point in going on a diet, I'll still have to eat food."
We can solve a good deal of the issue by enforcing labor laws against exploitative companies and making it easier to immigrate to work. Shameful that Democrats and Republicans are more or less on the same page when it comes to immigration policy.
Shameful that Democrats and Republicans are more or less on the same page when it comes to immigration policy.
This goes beyond immigration policy. There's large swaths of situations in our country that both major parties agree on. One thing that comes to mind is the bank bailouts. Most citizens were against this, but it was wildly popular in both parties.
Go figure, when you take a group of mostly rich people and stick them together in Congress, they are increasingly out of touch with the average citizen, and at times, even opposed to the interests of the people they are supposedly representing.
If request for asylum is not heard and immigration are simply deported, it would be shutting down the border.
I mean the article explains exactly what he meant:
"A bipartisan bill would be good for America and help fix our broken immigration system and allow speedy access for those who deserve to be here, and Congress needs to get it done,” Biden said. “It’ll also give me as president, the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I’d shut down the border right now and fix it quickly.”
The deal being negotiated in Congress would require the U.S. to shutter the border if roughly 5,000 migrants cross illegally on any given day.
Questions that beg answers:
- Who "deserves" to be here? What criteria are we using?
- What constitutes "under control?" This feels like a 9/11-ish Patriot Act sort of open-ended law.
- How does one "shut down" a 2000 mile long border without meaningful defenses?
- What constitutes a fix?
- How are we tracking migrants, given that plenty of people slip through unnoticed, or cross legally and remain illegally?
Who “deserves” to be here? What criteria are we using?
See: existing immigration laws
What constitutes “under control?” This feels like a 9/11-ish Patriot Act sort of open-ended law.
Only controlled, legal crossings
How does one “shut down” a 2000 mile long border without meaningful defenses?
You don't. There will be defenses (intrusion detection, border guards, etc.)
What constitutes a fix?
All immigration into the US is in compliance with our current regulations.
How are we tracking migrants, given that plenty of people slip through unnoticed, or cross legally and remain illegally?
It's almost impossible to live off the map in the US. Will we find every person that illegally snuck into the country? No. But, we will find some of them and either deport or naturalize them.
So basically, we are expanding the scope of government oversight and surveillance to pursue a dubious policy that has a very low probability of success, to enforce immigration laws that are archaic, unnessessarily restrctive, and utterly ineffective.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“A bipartisan bill would be good for America and help fix our broken immigration system and allow speedy access for those who deserve to be here, and Congress needs to get it done,” Biden said.
He’s loathe to give a win to Biden on an issue that animated the Republican’s successful 2016 campaign and that he wants to use as he seeks to return to the White House.
It was a stark claim from a Democratic president that was met with astonishment and shock from immigrant advocates who have said his policies do not reflect the progressive approach they had expected.
“Voters want to see our elected leaders do the hard work to fix our frayed immigration system,” said Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer at the American Civil Liberties Union.
“President Biden and Congress must abandon these proposals and heed voters’ demands for fair and effective immigration policies that manage the border and treat people seeking safety with dignity.”
Mexicans accounted for 56,236 arrests in December, while Venezuelans were second with 46,937, erasing much of the decline that followed the start of deportation flights to Venezuela in October.
The original article contains 664 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Oh my fucking god not a priority (also not a possibility). Fuck this country.
view more: next ›