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
Nobody had any problems correctly calling them concentration camps when Trump was president. Now, you're literally over here going to bat for ICE. Now, all of a sudden, you trust ICE to decide if someone's a security risk. People can be held in these camps indefinitely for no crime other than crossing the border. This is the same system, by the way, with kangaroo courts where young children are made to defend themselves in court, with no right to an attorney, against the threat of deportation.
This is whataboutism. The question wasn't "who's worse on immigration" the question was "do the democrats engage in/fail to fight xenophobia." If you want to tell me that you're holding your nose and voting for a lesser evil that still engages in and promotes xenophobic policies, that's one thing, but you're claiming that the democrats don't engage in xenophobia at all. You're moving the goalposts from "not xenophobic" to "less xenophobic than Trump."
Really, and what does "addressing the humanitarian crisis" look like, exactly? Does it look like this?
Or does it look like shutting down asylum?
Your support for the marginalized is entirely mercenary. When you can use their plight to help your team win an election, you have nothing but sympathy for them against those cruel, evil, xenophobic Republicans. But when your team is the one doing it, when the truth becomes inconvenient for you, suddenly you don't give a single shit about them and happily cheerlead immigration cops, concentration camps, and giving unpresidented powers to the president to shut down the border for no reason. It's absolute, tribalistic loyalty, and any principles or empathy you might pretend to have are always secondary to saying whatever helps your team.
Do you think there's a difference between the Dems having migrants detained for on average a month (farrrrr less than the limit for pretrial detention for even citizens), just to process paperwork and decide whether they can come in or not, and the Republicans who intentionally used it to punish and seperate families, and plans to use the military to round up millions of immigrants?
Absolutely incredible the lengths you're willing to go to to throw minorities under the bus and downplay what's happening the very moment it becomes inconvenient to you. What you described is absolutely not what's happening. The system doesn't fundamentally change overnight the moment a democrat gets in office, immigrants are still being detained en masse, indefinitely, in terrible conditions, with no due process or right to council. If it's just about "processing paperwork" then why did Biden shut down asylum and try to pass a bill giving the president the power to unilaterally shut down the border?
Again, this isn't about the Republicans. You're doing whataboutism again. You chose to make that irrelevant when you made the claim, not that democrats were merely "less xenophobic than Republicans" but "not xenophobic at all." I don't want to hear another word from you trying to change the subject to something irrelevant like that to weasel your way out of this.
I think arguing that the Dems are fighting against the literal fascist party is a sign of them fighting not taking part in xenophobia. But sure, if you'd only like to talk about the Dems policy and ignore the fascists I can do that too.
First Biden ended the xenophobic Trump travel ban, and other programs that inhumanely seperated families and kept migrants detained for months. This changing is the main reason the system is different, Trump didnt pass any laws on the border, so all of his executive orders could be immediately rescinded or changed.
Second he strengthened programs such as DACA to protect over 700,000 people from deportations
Third, he sent Kamala Harris to address migration at its root causes, primarily poverty in Latin America, by investing in unions, public welfare plans, and businesses in those countries, while also working with NGO's to strengthen democracy in those countries.
Fourth Biden increased Trump's limit for how many refugees/asylum seekers the US could take per year, from 15,000 people per year, to its level now of 125,000 per year.
Fifth, Biden signed executive orders reforming ICE, limiting the amount and type of deportations they can carry out, and requiring border facilities to have the same standards as Federal Prisons. While also drastically shortening the average amount of time migrants and asylum seekers stayed detained.
Sixth, Biden put back in place protections originally granted under the Obama administration but gotten rid of by Trump, that grants asylum for gang or domestic violence, allowing them to stay in the U.S (not in detainment) while their case is reviewed.
Seventh, Biden created a new path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of people when he signed an executive order granting the undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens green cards.
The policy of the Biden administration has been entirely built around taking in more people through legal avenues, while trying to decrease the amount of illegal migration, while also trying to aid the countries battered by poverty and decades of U.S. military intervention that are the sources of the migration in the first place.
You can say "Biden tried to close the border" or "People held indefinitely" but both of them are untrue, border crossing would only become closed to those who tried to come across illegally, the legal avenues wouldn't close, and the Biden administration has brought the amount of time the average asylum seeker is detained massively from several months under Trump, to an average of 10 - 30 days under Biden.
That's the Democratic policy, and I strain to see how any of it comes from xenophobic intentions, but if you would like to say that they're the same, or even that the democrats are "an evil" on the issue and don't want to fix it, then go ahead.
It's absolutely not. The Democrats were always going to fight the Republicans regardless of policy, because they want to be the ones in charge.
If I'm like a warlord conquering shit for my own gain, and one of the places I conquer happens to be full of assholes, that does not prove that I have some kind of ideological commitment against being an asshole. In the same way, the Democrats' road to power happens to involve winning elections against Republicans, but they don't get credit for pursuing their own self-interest.
As for the points you mentioned, it's true that they have relaxed immigration policy in some areas, but my criticism still stands - Biden wants to give the president power to unilaterally shut down the border, people are held indefinitely in camps, and he also put limits on the number of asylum seekers. Your assertions to the contrary are simply false. Since your claim was that they don't engage in, or even fail to fight xenophobia "in any way" it's not enough to just show a couple points in that direction, it has to be a consistent policy.
Points out what you're saying isn't true
"Okay but it's still indefinite and he wants to close the border"
As I addressed, both of those are false, but if you would like to ignore the truth and retreat to your comfortable talking points where you can pretend the Dems only want to do good things to fight the Reps then go ahead.
What you're forgetting is that Indefinite Detainment, (which lasts usually until Trial, on which case they go to a real prison or are deported) only applies to literal terrorists and cartel members, and that the Biden "Closed Border" Policy only applies to illegal between-port-of-entry immigration, legal immigration through legal ports of entry is still completely allowed under this policy, and has several exemptions for humanitarian concerns.
"Only applies to" so you admit that it is, in fact, happening. So when you say, "Points out what you were saying isn't true," and "both of those are false," you're just brazenly lying and contradicting yourself.
You're not going to convince me that trusting border cops to indefinitely detain whoever they feel like, so long as they accuse them of being a terrorist first, is in any way a good idea or not xenophobic. I don't give a shit about the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" ports of entry either.
You can't say you don't care about specifics when the specifics specifically refute what you're saying.
You can ignore the difference between legal ports of entry and the rest of the border, but the entirety of border law is built upon this difference, so ignoring this difference immediately makes you irrelevant among all professional discussion of the border. There's also a massive difference between closing the border and closing the border in areas where it can't be regulated, which is what the Biden administration did, the border is not closed.
"Border Cops" aren't the ones doing the investigations into Cartel and terrorist group members, that would be DHS. There's a massive difference between DHS getting the name and identity of a terrorist, putting them on a list, their name coming up to Border Control at the border, and then Border Control holding them until DHS can investigate, and "every immigrant is detained indefinitely with no lawyer in terrible conditions" which was your original claim.
they're sealioning you in an attempt to frustrate you; don't feed the troll.