I think he's pivoting on this in order to secure aid for Ukraine and I'm not so much bothered by it. He's at least appearing hawkish on border control to take away a talking point from the GOP, so they can't use that as an excuse for holding up aid to Ukraine (chances are they'll find something else, but they won't have this to rally around). In my mind, Ukraine is perhaps one of The most important foreign policy issues facing the world right now, it's the line in the sand where we can stop Russia and make them pay for all the bullshit psyop fuckery they've been inflicting on the rest of the world for at least the past decade or more, not to mention preventing them from invading any other countries. Ukraine has fought hard for the past 2-3 years and they deserve our help more than anybody else in the world (way more than Israel). Russia is a genuine agent of chaos in the world, they thrive on it and they've learned to take advantage of it, stopping them there makes the world a better place and it's the right thing to do.
politics
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
This one read the article. ☝🏼🤓
I don't think it's surprising, I don't think the Democratic Party really means to be as lax on border issues as the Republicans make them out to be. They want more liberal immigration policies, and are willing to give illegals who were brought here as kids a path to citizenship, but that is different than letting just anyone go over the border, today.
It's not so much of a shift as it is we've all gotten used to the Republican narrative on this, this "open borders" stuff. I don't think a single Democrat wants to take all the migrants that can come right now. But Democratx want to treat them like humans while we figure out what to do with them. Bit that's too radical for most Republicans, I guess.
There were more deportations from the Obama administration than both the Trump and Bush Admins. Clinton deported more people than any president before him back to Grover Cleveland. Obama had over a million more people deported in the 8 years he was in office than Bush had in his 8 Years. The bs right wing talking points are easily proven false and there is plenty of evidence to prove them false but once the idiots hear something they latch on to it and believe it no matter what. The only difference between right wing immigration policies and left wing immigration policies is the left wing tries to treat immigrants like human beings and is easier on those seeking asylum.
Funny I just reread your comment and saw you mentioned something about treating people like humans I agree and that's my point also.
left wing tries to treat immigrants like human beings
Is that why Obama/Biden built the cages for kids? And why immigrants this last summer were were subjected to inhumane heat in Texas and Arizona, many days exceeding 120* outdoor temps, and the ones housed inside with no air-conditioning? In the same inhumane conditions that liberals were in an uproar about when Trump was President.
Debating with you isn't worth my time based on your post history. Here is a WP article about the differences between Obama and Trump relating to your post and mine.
Trump set the precedent with zero tolerance and Biden has run with it, like he has most of Trumps worst policies.
Stunning? It's not even surprising.
I know this is highly politicised in the USA but almost every other country in the world (yes the left leaning ones too) don't have open borders.
A border wall or whatever is actually pretty normal and the standard. Are democrats actually opposed to this or are they just hating on it because Trump suggested it?
The US doesn't have open borders and most borders in the world have no barriers at all. I'm not sure where you've got walls all along your border such that you think it's normal.
Most US borders dont have walls, good grief what are they talking about.
They're saying other countries are all walled up, which is also complete nonsense.
Lol there's no forts if that's what you have in mind. But there's border controls and limited walls where people hit the border. If people start entering illegally they extend the walls as needed.
Recent examples would be Colombia, Finland and Greece
Here's an image with marks for the border barriers throughout the world from the Economist around Trump's election. You'll notice how most borders don't have them. No one is saying no barriers exist, but they are not the norm. The US had some before Trump and the presence or absence of border fences has nothing to do with whether a border is "open".
I've gone overland from Singapore to Paris and from Alaska to Argentina and a lot of other travel and I've only ever been able to just walk over the border in two places (Paraguay/brazil and iran/Pakistan)
That you didn't hike into the wilderness to find the unfenced border has nothing to do with whether those crossings existed. The US also has border barriers around regular road crossings and tourists, like yourself, just use those places.
Oh with obvious exceptions once inside Europe etc.
The issue isn't so much the wall, it's that there's no sense of priority. Our immigration system is dog shit and desperately needs to be reformed. Instead of putting any effort into that, we're huffing and puffing about a wall. It's just the wrong focus and we fully understand it's less about immigrants and more about Mexicans. Most illegal aliens are people who arrive by boat or plane, not crossing the southern border. They're people who over stay their visas. We never hear about that, or any plan to combat that. We only ever hear about the stupid border wall
Yeah legal immigration definitely needs an overhaul in the USA.
I think it would probably get more steam if the border was less porous though.
It's a hard sell to let in more legal immigrants when you can show photos of crowds swarming the border.
If he can use an executive order to go over congress' head and send weapons to Israel he can use an executive order for this shit, too.
I do not want Russia to win, but aren't we really getting to the point that Biden needs to cut his losses on aiding Ukraine and the world will have to hope that Europe steps up?
Edit: If you disagree, please tell me at what point the concessions to the Republicans are too much to agree to in order to fund sending weapons to Ukraine.
Honestly, this is how government works in our system.
It’s not perfect but it’s how things get done and letting Russia win would set a TERRIBLE precedent for their future expansion goals and for China’s inevitable moves on Taiwan.
Nothing short of domestic capitulation to fascism is too much to stop support for Ukraine. We can reverse shitty policies. We can't reverse the destruction of sovereignty and genocide of a people by an imperialist power.
Isn't denying desperate people asylum capitulation to fascism?
If that were the case, we would have been a fascist state long ago.
There are multiple steps toward fascism and shutting down the border is absolutely one of them.
I don't think we agree on what fascism is, then.
It hits at least two points on Eco's 14 features of fascism-
-
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
-
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
There's a reason that's it's 14 points, and not 2 points. I can name any number of things that fit individual points or small combinations of points, yet are very distinctly not fascism or a step towards fascism. Fascism is a movement, an ideology, a worldview, not a single policy.
A movement that Republicans embrace, so how many concessions should they be given?
As I said, any number of concessions on policy that do not increase their power (ie capitulation to fascism).
Giving them what they want does increase their power.
Do you think they're going to allow the border to be opened again and asylum seekers allowed in again one of these days because they love immigrants so much?
Giving them what they want does increase their power.
93% of Americans share some concern about border. Do your really think holding out on behalf of principles and us 7% of sane individuals strengthens the non-fascists, in a democratic system?
Do you think they’re going to allow the border to be opened again and asylum seekers allowed in again one of these days because they love immigrants so much?
... do you think that's what the current compromise bill being proposed does? And do you think that any policy enacted will be unable to be repealed under a non-fascist government?
Sorry, is "shares some concerns about the border" the same as "wanting to shut everything down and stop anyone from coming in?"
And if shutting down the border is not what is being proposed, maybe Biden shouldn't be pledging to shut down the border.
We're a country whose most famous symbol has a poem welcoming people seeking asylum at its base. The irony seems lost.
Sorry, is “shares some concerns about the border” the same as “wanting to shut everything down and stop anyone from coming in?”
And if shutting down the border is not what is being proposed, maybe Biden shouldn’t be pledging to shut down the border.
The agreement is expected to give the executive branch a new legal authority to effectively suspend asylum in between official ports of entry when migrant crossings surpass certain thresholds. That would affect remote areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas where migrants regularly cross into the U.S. illegally to surrender themselves to overtaxed federal immigration officials who often release them because they don't have the resources to screen everyone for asylum.
The power, which Mr. Biden referred to as an authority to "shut down the border" on Friday, would be mandated after average daily migrant crossings hit 5,000 over seven days, or 8,500 in a single day. It could also be activated on a discretionary basis after average daily crossings surpass 4,000 in a week. There would also be a limit on the number of days each year the president could invoke the authority.
When the authority is invoked, migrants who cross into the U.S. illegally would not be allowed to ask for asylum, and would face swift deportation to Mexico or their home country. Exceptions would be made for those who pass screenings for other, more difficult-to-obtain forms of humanitarian refuge, including protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The use of strong rhetoric can sway people who are vulnerable to emotional appeals on issues they understand little about. Like the majority of America on the border.
We’re a country whose most famous symbol has a poem welcoming people seeking asylum at its base. The irony seems lost.
I don't disagree. I actually mentioned that earlier today, in fact. But sanity and virtue are not always winning issues in a democracy - or in politics in general. We work with what we have, not what we want.
I understand the sentiment. We’re now in the early stages of Idiocracy where Americans don’t understand support for Ukraine. I’ve tried explaining it and they just don’t get it. The U.S. is heading towards isolationism and it won’t change whether it’s a democrat or republican in office. All that we can hope is that Biden wins while still keeping in line with his advisors.
There’s also the chance that Trump finally releases his grip on the GOP (not willingly, of course) and Republicans start to come back to reality. Then we could have people like Lankford be the new standard for GOP senators as opposed to Cruz, Blackburn, and Hawley. At least he’ll work with Democrats. The rest only want to obstruct. And when they only want to obstruct, we’re left with a broken border system and a strategic ally scrambling for spare ammo.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden’s evolution on the key election issue of immigration entered a new phase when he promised to “shut down the border right now” if given new powers by Congress.
The deeper policy context of the comments, delivered at a campaign event in South Carolina Saturday and in a statement from the White House on Friday, is that Biden wants to resuscitate a bipartisan deal to pair new border powers with additional military aid for Ukraine and Israel.
“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible, open-borders betrayal of America,” Trump said in Nevada on Saturday, although future Republican presidents would also benefit from the new power Biden is seeking.
“But his administration has faced the harsh realities and challenges at the US-Mexico border amid record migration across the Western Hemisphere — making it a political vulnerability seized on by Republicans.”
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Lankford was pressed about the new authority for Biden, which would be triggered if there’s an average of 5,000 migrant crossings per day over the course of a full week.
Meanwhile, mayors of Democratic cities continue to raise the alarm about an untenable wave of migrants bused north from border states and draining their infrastructure.
The original article contains 1,074 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!