this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
34 points (71.2% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3058 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
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

This one read the article. ☝🏼🤓

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rashnet@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Stunning? It's not even surprising.

[–] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 10 months ago

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!