this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
-25 points (28.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2165 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
 

During the 2022 midterms, Voces de la Frontera Action poured its resources into mobilizing support for Democrats at the ballot box, with volunteer members directly contacting nearly 30,000 voters in their network and reaching 30,000 more through phone-banking and door-knocking, according to the organization. In 2020, Voces supported Biden’s presidential run.

Now, the group has turned its efforts toward promoting the Uninstructed campaign with mailers, door-knocking and social media promotion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

I read this with a little bit of skepticism... like okay let me provisionally accept this, criticizing Biden over Gaza is absolutely just and right, and there absolutely is a divide between the establishment left and the "rank and file" in terms of how they see the issue, and he's losing support because of it. And at the same time, I'm reading this wondering whether it's a genuine article about the issue or just an excuse to throw shade at Biden and bring a little anti-union shade into the equation also.

Most unions (management or not) are heavily anti-genocide, with little bits of disagreement about how far to go with it (e.g. whether to divest from all weapons production work that might help Israel). Most unions (management or not) are heavily pro-Biden for obvious reasons. I would describe the divide as a little bit less "management vs rank and file" than it is "do we care so much about Gaza that we'd erode support our favored candidate because of it." (And there's a pretty good argument that they should care to that extent; I'm just saying that's more where the divide lies, with most deciding to support him anyway.)

Here's my take on what I discovered in the article as my way of answering what was the goal of the article:

Instead of adopting an increasingly rightwing rhetoric and policy toward immigration, Neumann-Ortiz said, Biden should use his executive authority to expand protections for undocumented immigrants and campaign on protections for immigrants that his administration has implemented – like a 2023 measure the Department of Homeland Security quietly passed to protect non-citizen workers whose workplace rights have been violated from deportation.

“You’re not going to win those Trump supporters, but you are definitely eroding and alienating your own base,” said Neumann-Ortiz.

This year, Biden has touted legislation to crack down on the southern border and limit the number of asylum seekers accepted on a daily basis there

Here's a summary of Biden's immigration changes. Not listed in that is the fact that he formed a task force to find the families of all those separated children who were just loose kicking around in the system growing up in hell after Trump's family separation policy, and tried to reunite them with their families. Maybe the sum total number of people impacted by that is small, but to me that perfectly encapsulates the difference in humanity in Biden's immigration policy versus Trump's and the current Republicans.

Sure, you can give him a hard time because while trying to work out a deal to get desperately-needed aid to Ukraine, he adopted some of the rhetoric of his opponents and offered them way more than he should have, in terms of conceding to the terrible things they want to do at the border, to try to bargain for help for millions of other non-Americans who were at risk of dying somewhere else in the world. Using that hard time as an argument for why he affirmatively wants to do bad things on immigration, and a reason to give more power to the opponents instead of to him, is very very clearly a whole bunch of nonsense.

, and even used the pejorative “illegal” in his State of the Union address.

Blow me. Be fair if you're going to give criticism; don't do this way, or it's going to make me look at the whole rest of your article like "wtf what are you tryin to pull man."

[–] juicy -4 points 7 months ago (11 children)

You don't have an issue with Biden calling immigrants "illegals"?

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 7 months ago (10 children)

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: What about Laken Riley?

(Cross-talk.)

AUDIENCE: Booo —

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: Say her name!

THE PRESIDENT: (The President holds up a pin reading “Say Her Name, Laken Riley.”) Lanken — Lanken (Laken) Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed.

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: By an illegal!

THE PRESIDENT: By an illegal. That’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?

I have no problem with anything he said there, no; and if you do, I would say that you're deliberately making an issue from nothing of substance, in very Republican fashion.

[–] juicy -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have family who are undocumented, and yes, I do have an issue with what he said. They are not "illegals." It betrays the same lack of caring that manifests in policy as Migrant children in open-air desert camps are suffering from hunger and hypothermia, court documents say and 'No good options': Biden admin has no plans to change how it treats Haitian migrants despite outrage from advocates. Replace "illegal" with any other pejorative ethnic term and maybe you'll understand. It's seriously not cool, which is why he walked it back later.

The Guardian wrote:

Democrats and immigrant rights organizations said Biden’s use of “illegal” was dehumanizing. The Illinois congresswoman Delia Ramirez said she was “disappointed” in Biden’s use of what she called “dehumanizing rightwing rhetoric” to describe immigrants. “No human being is illegal,” Ramirez said. Another Illinois representative, Chuy García, added: “As a proud immigrant, I’m extremely disappointed to hear President Biden use the world “illegal”.

The National Immigrant Justice Center called the term “words [from] anti-immigrant extremists”, adding: “Manipulating a personal tragedy for political gain in this way is dangerous. Conflating immigration status with criminality is racist and dehumanizing.”

But u/mozz says it's nothing, so I guess we just need to eat shit and shut up. At least Biden had the decency to admit he was wrong.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I've had friends who were undocumented. One was actually in and out of custody before the Obama-era immigration reforms came along; long story short he was able to stay in the country. I still remember talking with people about how to get up bail money to get him out, and him talking about a bunch of things about being in jail in a not-real-friendly part of the country.

I don't believe you. I think you're lying to justify your grandstanding. I already sent you a pretty long list of what Biden has done factually on immigration. Seizing on him quoting back to someone hateful, a hateful word that they used, in order to make a point back to them, and spending any amount of energy saying that means anything, is a bunch of bullshit. That's actually one reason I don't believe you -- I've seen people in this community who take the viewpoint that all US politicians are basically the enemy with no particular reason to pick good ones or bad ones or get excited about this Fox News bullshit about any of them, and I've seen people who actually study in detail what's going on factually, but doing this Judge Judy level determinations of who it is that's good and bad on immigration policy and then getting all excited about it, I haven't seen too much of except from outsiders to the community.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not even like this is a random position only seen on Lemmy from perpetual detractors. The person you're responding to literally gave you quotes from Latino public figures and advocacy organizations. But yeah, your ~~black~~ undocumented friend totally makes you a convincing authority on which immigrant rights positions are coming from the community.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I make no claim to authority; I'm explaining what I think and why, including why I think juicy is lying. Maybe my experience with probably-shills has made me jaded but that's what I think.

You're obviously within your rights to think that Ramirez, Chuy García, or the Immigrant Justice Center are right and I am wrong about why Biden said "illegal". I think the transcript speaks for itself and I think they're being foolish and self-defeating if they're falling into the trap of attacking him over it.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not a matter of whether they're right, it's a direct contradiction to your insinuation that this is a fake sentiment coming from "outside the community". And those weren't even the Latino only congressmembers who objected to it.

Maybe cool off on the "he's lying" when you're trying to claim that a pretty well recognized anger over a Democratic president adopting conservative framing and policy for the border is astroturfing using "I had a friend" as your justification.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah, that’s honestly a fair point. I assumed that 100% of serious immigration advocates would recognize it for the bullshit that it is, so that feeding into this transparent grandstanding mythology about what Biden said and meant and neglecting to observe his actual record on the issues would be a tell of someone who wasn’t a real advocate for immigrants, but apparently that’s not true. Live and learn, I guess.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)