In political parlance I think this is called "hang it around their neck"
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
126 points (95.7% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2393 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The New York Democrat called the legislation “a tough, serious-minded, and – critically, bipartisan – proposal to secure our border” in a “Dear Colleague” letter.
The initial package, which included tough border provisions and foreign aid to US allies, was blocked in February by the Senate amid a torrent of attacks by top House Republicans and former President Donald Trump, who is making the border a central campaign issue in his race for the White House.
Schumer acknowledged that he doesn’t expect all Democrats will support the stand-alone border bill — with some caucus members saying earlier this year the legislation “misses the mark.” Republican leaders have already said they oppose Schumer’s move to revote on the legislation, making it unlikely the bill can secure the 60 votes it would need to advance.
The White House and top Democrats have discussed taking more action on the border ahead of the first presidential debate next month, CNN previously reported.
Those plans, intended to strengthen the party’s hand on a critical campaign issue ahead of the 2024 election, also potentially include a sweeping executive order limiting migrants’ ability to seek asylum, sources have told CNN.
CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez, MJ Lee, Clare Foran, Morgan Rimmer and Manu Raju contributed to this report.
The original article contains 353 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
"Fuck you. Vote Blue." - Biden to his base
"Give us your money and die, peasants." - Republicans
President Joe Biden previously endorsed the border provisions, and while Trump and other Republicans have called it too weak, the bill would have marked a tough change to immigration law and would have given the president far-reaching powers to restrict illegal migrant crossings at the southern border.
The White House and top Democrats have discussed taking more action on the border ahead of the first presidential debate next month, CNN previously reported. Those plans, intended to strengthen the party’s hand on a critical campaign issue ahead of the 2024 election, also potentially include a sweeping executive order limiting migrants’ ability to seek asylum, sources have told CNN.
Biden's getting protested by his own party for acting too much like Republicans...
So now Dems are going to act even more like Republicans? We can't address real problems, but we're working with republicans on "border security"?
If Dem voters always "vote blue no matter who" then the party is going to keep moving right under the misguided idea that trump voters will vote for Biden.
I truly wish it didn't take abstaining from the vote to get the message across, I don't even know if that will work honestly. But it's clear they don't give a fuck about protests when they're in power to do something.
I've watched the party pull to the right for 30 years now. Shutting up and voting for the lesser of two evils isn't sustainable long term. The party needs to move back to the left, but they never will if we keep blindly voting for Dems that agree with Republicans on this stupid shit.
There's a lot of issues with our shitty 2 party system. No doubt.
But I think you (and a lot of folks on lemmy) are vastly over estimating how liberal most Americans are. The country as a whole is fairly moderate (and compared to the international world, pretty conservative), and when both parties allow themselves to be controlled by the fringe edges (right or left), most Americans will lean away from the party unless they're a brainwashed group of idiots without the ability to critically think... And those type of folks already have their orange champion.
Abstaining from voting is only going to help one group of people, and unless you enjoyed Jan 6th, that isn't ok. I agree whole heartedly that this situation sucks. We've got a wanna be dictator with a real shot at the presidency and our only other choice is Joe Biden.
But there's only been one president in the history of the country that has promoted and pushed for an overthrow of democracy, I'd vote for anyone running against him to prevent that shit from happening again. Meanwhile I'm voting for any representative and senator or local politicians who work towards a ranked voting solution. But if you abstain then you're helping Trump get elected, you're absolutely stupid if you think the 2 are the same, Biden is not my ideal candidate by any means, but at least he isn't actively trying to destroy our country or literally offering to sell our future to big oil.
Most Americans aren't that conservative, they've just been conditioned to vote by party. If you break them out individually, many liberal and even progressive issues are supported by a majority of Americans. However the second you lump them together and call that the "Democratic Party Platform" you get a knee-jerk reaction against it.
Agreed, specific issues a lot of people lean all over the place and I think more people are realizing we need social programs.
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.
So, this is an evidence-based attempt to make things better
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.
Just because Republicans keep saying something doesn't make it "evidence"...
Maybe this does:
A Sober Assessment of the Growing U.S. Asylum Backlog
At the end of FY 2012, over 100,000 asylum cases were pending in the Immigration Court’s backlog. A decade later, the backlog had grown over 7-fold to over 750,000 cases in September at the end of FY 2022. Since then, in just the first two months of FY 2023 (October-November 2022), the asylum backlog jumped by over 30,000 new cases and now totals 787,882. See Figure 1.
TRAC has been praised by fellows at the anti-immigration think tank Center for Immigration Studies for the quality of the data it provides on immigration as well as the Federal Courts and federal law enforcement organizations.
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
You think the existence of a large backlog of asylum seekers... Means we should deny all asylum seekers?
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.
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.
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?
So why are you talking about a 5k limit?
I'm not going to answer any more questions you can answer by reading the bill.
None of what you're saying makes sense, it's just "your team" so you defend it.
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.
Not sure what “team” you’re even implying I’m on?
...
Yeah, this is done.
Ma dude, you're just ranting in this thread and not making much of a coherent argument or thought in context with the article. Politics is shitty. We get it.
That's his schtick. He shows up in threads wanting politics to "be better"... By shitting on the only viable alternative to the fascism Republicans have to offer.
When Republicans are outright saying they want Trump to be above the law, there's no reason to shit talk Biden on anything unless GOP fascism is your end goal. All such action does is create division and apathy.
I think there are definitely good reasons to criticize Biden. I also think when it's all you do, it starts to look very sus. We need nuance in our criticism, realism in our strategies. And you're right in that I think during an election season, I would be thinking about where my priorities are with airing my criticism in public places, if you are actually laying out the odds for harm reduction.
Not everyone subscribes to harm reduction though, which I disagree with, but hey you can't win them all.
Edit: Also, sorry for double responding. Just two separate topics in there.
I should block them, but it's really frustrating see them post nothing in the way of facts or sources. It's always just a generic, leftist-flavored response to the most uncharitable reading of every comment. They will flat out just ignore the parts they don't want to respond to. It's just like arguing with the maga people, but with less discrimination. I'll give them that, I guess.
there's no reason to shit talk Biden on anything
Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, Biden could do a genocide on your Instagram feed.
You know, I didn't support Democrats because I like the color blue. I used to think there was a difference.
"Both sides!"
Any opinion that equates Democrats and Republicans can safely be discarded.
Democrats don't seem to be interested whatsoever in the will of.thwir voters.