this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
345 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3129 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 166 points 9 months ago (83 children)

What a stupid thing to focus on. I hate that the southern border is even a topic people bring up. It's a completely made up problem.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 67 points 9 months ago (3 children)

B-but scawwy foreigners!

75% of this country thinks the border is in crisis. I fucking hate it.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we had a political party with the courage to say "It's not a crisis, quit falling for bullshit" that number would go down

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not by much, I'd wager. Democrats don't tend to sway their opinions much when the party takes a different line than the majority Dem opinion, and Republicans are too racist to change their views on the border.

It would be nice to have a voice of sanity in the fucking country, though.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A majority of Democratic voters in the 40s and 50s thought segregation was a state issue the federal government should stay out of because they didn't want the controversy, but some Democratic leaders saw it differently, and thank goodness they did because without them pushing the issue along with civil rights activists we never would have gotten (among other things) a voting rights act.

It wouldn't just be nice to have a voice of sanity, it's the only way this issue is getting any better imo

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 9 months ago

While Truman's advocacy of civil rights in the '48 platform is definitely pivotal in terms of effecting policy, I would raise the question as to how much of the change in opinions was due to the party tack, and how much was due to the ongoing and revitalized post-WW2 civil rights movement and increasing integration and civic participation of liberal blocs in the north.

I suppose it's academic in the end. I would love for the Dem party to take up the issue, like I said. It's just a 'chicken or the egg' question.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I think the border is in crisis. Our shitty policies make it incredibly and unnecessarily difficult for people to enter the country seeking asylum or a legal means of getting citizenship. I would say the camps of people stuck on the other side of the border, prey to criminals who would rape, steal, and murder (not to mention the asylum-seekers vulnerable to those they are seeking asylum from) are the biggest part of that crisis.

So I'm not sure if I'd be considered part of that 75%, because my solution is to make the system more efficient in letting people in and started with paths to citizenship. Then there wouldn't be masses of people at the border.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but when most people say "Border crisis", they don't mean "Holy shit refugees are in inhumane conditions, we need to help them", they mean "I'm scared that there are too many brown people coming into MY good, white, Christian country!"

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Oh, no, definitely agree, that's why I say I'm not really what one would include in that 75%.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

The legislation had funding for more staff and judges to be able to process asylum requests faster. The GOP got some stupid shit in there that probably wouldn't hold up in court (typical tough guy posturing shit), but there were some good things in there too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No no, scary brown people

They're perfectly fine with white foreigners that either speak English or have enough money/power they don't care.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 52 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Every 2 years like fucking clockwork there's a "border crisis" to waste time and energy on, which promptly disappears from public consciousness and media the day after the election. It's tiring

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stern@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

Its an election year so theres magically another immigrant surge that needs to be fixed.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

If we had open borders, I bet 99% of Americans wouldn't even notice a change in their day-to-day life. Old peoples' obsession with the border is tiring as fuck. I just don't understand any they care so much about something that doesn't affect them, other than to simply be racist.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (22 children)

According to the DHS,

Affirmative asylum case filings with USCIS nearly quadrupled from 63,074 applications in 2021 to 238,841 in 2022, the highest number on record.

The total number of defensive asylum applications filed with EOIR nearly tripled from 88,162 in 2021 to 253,524 in 2022, the highest on record.

I don't have the numbers for all of 2023 in front of me but they're higher than the ones for 2022. (And keep in mind that not everyone crossing the border files an asylum application.)

Hundreds of thousands more people than normal are entering across the border, and existing systems for accommodating them are overwhelmed. Maybe the best solution is not closing the border, but thinking that there is no problem is inconsistent with reality.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago

Yeah it sounds like we need to better fund our asylum program.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Crazy idea, but we all came to this country as immigrants, and wiped out most of the population that was already here. Seems a little ironic to me that we're now concerned about who can and can't live here.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I live in New York City, where as of the beginning of December 2023,

According to the city's Department of Social Services, more than 157,600 asylum seekers arrived in New York City since last spring [2022] in need of shelter and more 67,000 remain in the city's care, with hundreds more arriving every day.

That's about 2% of the population of the city. The ones still in shelters have more than doubled the city's homeless population. If we stopped being concerned about these people then they would be outside without food and shelter, and it gets quite cold around here. However, being concerned about them is projected to cost the city more than ten billion dollars over the next three years, which is a lot of money even for a city this big.

Something needs to be done at the federal level. Right now the federal government is letting a lot of people in and then doing very little to take care of them once they're in the country, and that's not working.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I agree, we should be helping people that come into this country seeking refuge from war, and shitty economic conditions in their own countries, not demonizing them.

We aren't doing that, we are instead using them as political pawns for browny points with each political parties respective base. Instead of seeing them as people.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 9 months ago (5 children)

so you agree this is really just a funding issue at the federal level?

youre of course pushing your representatives to increase funding for all immigration programs, right?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

sounds like we need to floood our immigration system with cash so we can finally help all those human beings. you want to help human beings, right?

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (78 replies)