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

politics

19107 readers
3339 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
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

you first have to ask why they are here

no, i dont. my problem is with current immigration policy, regardless of why they are at the border.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can't establish a reasonable policy on immigration without asking why people are emigrating. You need to ask why they are coming here long before you consider policy.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

i get it , you suffer from some sort of roadblock you cant get past regarding origin. it must be hard being stuck in that place.

you do you, but i will be pushing for immigration reform at the border regardless of origin.

we should put this back to our pre-'24 order of allowing all immigrants unless they fail screening criteria, regardless of origin.

did i say regardless of origin enough? cuz it feels like i didnt point out how incredibly irrelevant that is when theyre standing at the gates.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Red herring. My question was not "where did they come from". My question was "why did they come".

If they are here because they want to be here, great, the more the merrier.

If they are here because they aren't safe where they actually want to be, we should be making them safe where they actually want to be.

If they are here because they are impoverished where they actually want to be, we should be improving the economies of where they actually want to be.

You can't spin this to where it is somehow better to deliberately ignore why they are coming. That question must be asked, and we must also justify any action or inaction we take in light of that answer.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

why is irrelevant. america should be safe harbor for anyone, for any reason in any volume.

we are also not here to solve the *emigration problem of all other countries. thats just asinine.

why do you expect the united states to manage all other countries?? wtf

america is not and should not be the worlds police

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When your neighbor is beating his wife and kids, you don't just invite them to stay with you. You do something about the abuser as well.

I reject your assertion that "why" is irrelevant. "why" is the single most important question that must be asked.

Human Rights aren't limited to those who manage to make it to our borders. For the same reason why we should be helping immigrants, we should also be helping those similarly situated. Those who want to leave, but are coerced into staying in abusive "relationships".