this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
40 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2598 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So, there is so much here that it's a little hard to respond to without taking a big chunk of my day to do a bunch of research. But looking over it to some extent, it looks to me like I pretty much already gave my quick take on it:

Part of the Democratic immigration plan is to boost resources for ICE ... and increase the number of judges to clear the backlog, which will decrease that side of the misery. Part of the plan is to deliberately increase the cruelty in some parts of the system ... so that the Republicans will make a deal and actually pass the thing.

As an example here's what the HRW article says:

On the date of your inauguration, fewer than 15,000 people were in ICE detention. This presented a remarkable opportunity to wind down a wasteful and abusive system. Indeed, your own 2023 and 2024 budget requests sought significantly decreased detention funding. ICE began internal reviews of the system, recommending the closure or downsizing of numerous facilities because of dangerously abusive conditions.

As the political winds shifted, so did your funding requests to Congress. In October 2023, you requested supplemental detention funding, and your FY2025 budget request sought funding for 34,000 beds instead of the 25,000 sought in the two previous cycles. The result is unsurprising: the FY2024 spending bill you signed provides ICE $3.4 billion to jail an average of 41,500 immigrants per day, historically high funding surpassing all four years of the Trump administration.

I honestly just don't have much reaction to add to this besides what I said up above. They're not remarking on the massive backlog of people (including the people waiting on the Mexican side of the border, which is a significant source of suffering, since unlike people in custody there's no particular guarantee of food, water, or sanitation while they're just camping there for months and months). They're not wrong about the compromises Biden has been making with the Republicans, and the increased cruelty that's being allowed into the system as a result, though. They're not remarking at all on the things in Biden's proposals that will reduce the misery (increasing judges being the main one) -- which is fine, I mean, it's not their job to come up with explanations for why something might be inhumane; they're just pointing out that it's terrible and asking that he fix it. But like I say, it seems like anything whether cruel or mixed or beneficial that Biden tries to do now is going to be blocked by the Republicans, so it's all moot.

I'm just not sure how you take away from all of that any kind of conclusion that 100% of it is Biden's favorite thing (as opposed to something dictated in part by circumstances or Republican maliciousness), or that it doesn't matter whether it's Biden or Republicans because they're all the same.