politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Republicans have been manufacturing outrage at the border to score political points on a regular basis, like that migrant caravan which convenes every four years like a Fox News political convention.
However, this recent crisis is a bit different, as we have numbers that show that there have been an increase in asylum claims at the border vs. before the Pandemic, which is overwhelming the courts that handle this sort of thing. If someone makes it over the border and claims asylum, it can take years to get a hearing, and in the meantime they can live and work here. That was not the intent behind the asylum process.
Some Senators on both sides realized this, and used the opportunity to try and fix the asylum process. Yes, it also reduces the types of people who could claim asylum. But it also addresses critical staffing shortages in CBP and other agencies who have to deal with the influx of migrants on a daily basis.
So, this is an evidence-based attempt to make things better. So, of course, Trump is against it, because using immigration as a campaign plank matters more to him than fixing the problem. As much as he complains about it, having the problem to talk about is more valuable to him than fixing it.
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn't make it "evidence"...
If that was true, Joe Biden would be a Communist that's more progressive than AOC, whose trying to pass strict gun laws, tax the rich, fight climate change, and get universal healthcare.
I'd love for that to be true, but it's not. And republicans repeating it over and over again won't suddenly make it try.
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/
Do you happen to have any other sources?
What?
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers... Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
I don't understand any of that logic...
Wouldn't the fix be to process all those applications?
You don't think people waiting years for asylum are going to try and cross illegally out of desperation?
I appreciate you linking that to show an actual problem with the border, but I have zero idea how you think this makes it better instead of worse.
Like, at all, unless I'm confused and you've been agreeing with me this whole time, I don't understand why you would link something so harmful to your own argument
I never said that, and that's not what this bill does. If you are going to lie about stuff, then there is no point to argue with you.
So what does the bill that's a "compromise" with republicans do to clear the backlog of asylum seekers?
Quite a bit. Have you read the bill? Section I is doing a lot of hiring and training changes for border personnel. Section II is entirely centered on enhancements to the asylum review process. It's mostly minutiae like streamlining certain bars for entry and such. There is also the contentious 5k/day (likely to be 4k under an R admin since it's discretionary) threshold in Section III that triggers a full stop to entry until some of the backlog is cleared. Not sure I fully agree with that one but it will indisputably have an impact on the backlog.
So...
The limit is discretionary if they can change it...
So they could do it at any point, just like I was saying?
And I still don't know why/how not accepting more applications or not allowing anyone else to cross the border actually fixes the backlog.
Like, them saying they'll hire more people could help. But if you had experience with a government agency, you'd know they're always saying they're going to increase staffing, and rarely random to do more than keep up with people leaving.
But thanks for letting me know what was in there is what I've been saying is in there.
No, it's discretionary down to a limit of 4k, which is also in the text of the bill. I really think you should stop commenting strongly on things you haven't even read. It's not a great look. You can find the section by section and full text on Lankford's site. He led the bipartisan team that introduced the bill, but I'm sure you can find it elsewhere.
So why are you talking about a 5k limit?
None of what you're saying makes sense, it's just "your team" so you defend it.
And your opinion that this is fine doesn't change the fact that Biden is already unpopular with Dem voters, that pushing this hurts the whole party's popularity, and if it actually passes it's all but guaranteeing republicans not only win the presidency but capture the Senate and maintain the House...
I don't think you're the original account that claimed this was somehow just to get votes...
So why do you think this is a good idea? Do you genuinely think this needs done or do you also think this will somehow help him?
I'm not going to answer any more questions you can answer by reading the bill.
Not sure what "team" you're even implying I'm on? I haven't given a single political opinion other than saying "not sure I agree with that" in response to the asylum claim threshold. I've only corrected factual information in regards to the text of the bill. In fact, I have less than zero desire to get into any sort of political argument with someone who won't even put in the 10 minutes it would take to read the section by section.
...
Yeah, this is done.