Oh my fucking god not a priority (also not a possibility). Fuck this country.
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
153 points (89.2% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3823 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
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.
view more: next ›