128
Illegal crossings at U.S.-Mexico border fall to 3-year low, the lowest level under Biden
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
128 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19889 readers
4510 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a shitty situation we're in where this is 'good' news. 70%+ of Americans have forgotten what's inscribed on Lady Liberty's base. Give me your tired, your poor...
Any other situation, I would say that this is terrible news. Our immigration system is fucking broken, and if putting extra weight on the break makes it more noticeable, than put the fucking weight on it. Not to mention the moral duty to provide refuge for those fleeing any kind of circumstance.
But we're also staring down a double-barrel shotgun of fucking fascism at the moment, so the opinions of our 70% of 'very concerned individuals' have to fucking matter in policy choices.
God, I hate humanity some days.
Only some days? Optimist.
Some days I just try not to think about it.
Would say that to Native Americans?
The ones who consider themselves American in the sense of belonging to the USA? Absolutely.
The ones who consider themselves belonging to sovereign (or semisovereign) nations that are under treaty with the USA, and do not consider themselves a part of the USA? Their opinions are not particularly relevant to the discussion, so I would see no reason to say that to them.
Yes they are. Theyre a historical example of what happens when you bring in an overwhelming amount of immigrants
I'm not really sure you understand the difference in the paradigm between 16th-18th century colonization and 19th-21st century immigration.
Okay, tell me what exactly is the difference here.
Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.
Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.
You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true 'majority' ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that's another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.
https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE?feature=shared
What the ever-loving fuck is that absolutely inane dogshite?
I can see why they turned comments off. You really buy into that? Like, that's the kind of thing my youth pastor in an evangelical church would've shown to all the kids when I was in 6th grade. "The GLOBALIST ELITE are TRICKING US into TAKING IN IMMIGRANTS who DESTROY OUR GOOD GODLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (that we also want to defund for the poor, but ignore that for now)"
Just numbers. You don't like numbers? Empirical evidence not your cup of tea? Very well then, be happy with your feelings.
YouTune videos are not empirical evidence. You can quite literally say whatever you want and show whatever you want on there with no peer review.
"Just numbers" in the same way Ben Shapiro saying "Facts don't care about your feelings" has any validity - ie in the abstract, but not in context. But hey, if you're convinced because "One gumball small, many gumballs LARGE", God forbid I be the one to break you of your happy, simplified world.
Like I said, enjoy having your feelings as the foundation of your knowledge.
You have fun peddling immigration bullshite that no economist, sociologist, or policy wonk takes seriously, but is wildly popular for some strange and entirely unknown reason amongst the alt-right.
So, you are going to pigeon hole data because you have no data to refute it. Plus,one wonders if you understand the data in the first place.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn't about that. It makes two points.
If the goal of immigration is to affect world poverty it will fail due to the scope of the problem.
In order to fight world poverty, attack it where it's at.
Both of these data sets are Not contradictory
Oh, it's NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That's definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
Are you even trying?
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don't have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you're a California taxpayer, you're paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
So now you are admitting that the video discusses American immigration and economics, great. Glad we could clear up that much. Perhaps the next step should be "How many of those people want to move to the US?" or "What are the effects of emigration on the countries who they are emigrating from?"
You're taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I'm sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is 'tricking' people into having empathy to cause 'damage' to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it's in everyone's best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
As the link I posted notes:
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just... not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?
Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That's... that's what the quote is getting at.
... yes. That's why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.
So, you're really not talking about permanent immigration, you're talking about training. Good.
... no, that's literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.
Countries with impoverished populations are likely to invest money on education. USAiD can help them do that.
You're really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it's used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.
I do get it and I would welcome such a decision. I just don't believe it's forthcoming
The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers. And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
Its not our "moral duty" to provide "refuge".
What on earth gave you that idea?
Some dweeb with no relevance to our country idk
If we are going to go with what Washington would do, do you really think he would be cool with a millions of non-whites as immigrants?
Honestly, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not… those guys had a weird disconnect between ‘nice black man I met on the street’ and ‘slaves I own’. But even if he wouldn’t want them, what he said is still true. America should be open to everyone. Pretty much all of us are immigrants here, our families coming in search of a better life. We should be opening our doors to the world, not closing them.
My issue is how they pick and chose what they like and ignore the rest. The issue with opening our doors to the world is that we have a gigantic welfare system that they have access to. If that were closed I can see the option being good to some level.
‘Gigantic welfare system’? What alternate-universe US are you living in? Our welfare system is shit. We don’t even have universal healthcare!
Welfare should be to help support struggling people. Helping those who are struggling improves not only their lives, but all of society as well. This has been proven over and over again—just look at UBI programs. We should be offering more support, not less.
These people pay taxes same as legal Americans, through their employer. They should therefore get access to every American system except voting.
Edit: relevant post lol
You are not aware of how the system works... If you are poor there is a huge amount of money and services you get including healthcare. Since the War on Poverty began, the US has spend something like $20 trillion.