this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
484 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2939 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As senators work on a compromise deal to address border security and immigration, at least one Republican is suggesting politics is a key motivator for him.

"Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating," Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas told CNN this week. "I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man's dismal approval ratings. I'm not going to do it. Why would I?"

Nehls indicated he'd accept only a proposal similar to HR 2, a hardline immigration bill that got zero Democratic votes when it passed the House last year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably because immigration reform almost never means just throwing down the borders and reverting to the old rules where you only had to prove a few years of residency to be eligible for citizenship.

Partially because racism, and partially because even a decent number of our allies would take extreme umbridge with the US doing that because of how it'd brain drain basically everything where the US offers a more competitive standard of living for given income.

The European tech sector would more or less instantly vanish because of how much more well paid American coders are by comparison, and Mexico would find itself losing every scrap of development and progress it has achieved over the last century as every educated professional files straight across the border.

Would do wonders screwing over America's adversaries though considering how literally all of them have such a worse standard of living that they have to set up structures to keep their people in as opposed to keeping the rest of the world out.

Basically the platonic ideal is to brain drain our adversaries, and strike a state by state balance with everyone else for what sort of freedom of movement arrangement most benefits both countries, the Philippines for example would be over the moon for a more open immigration system with the US since brain drain impacts them a lot less given how prevalent remittance is among Philippines expats.

Vietnam likewise would probably negotiate something more akin to a military exchange program since the war has become water under the bridge when compared to the ever present threat China presents to them, and Americans are some of the only foreigners the Japanese are able to tolerate enough to not actively scare off expats and immigrants. Brazil would LOVE an incentivization for American rocket scientists to brush up on their Portuguese, the idea of becoming a space port super power makes Brazilian state leaders drool over themselves at the possibilities, especially if French Guyana stops cooperating with the ESA.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

This is all geopolitical consideration, which is valuable, but generally not impactful in a campaign.