this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
15 points (60.3% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3142 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

How disappointing.

Well, there are still third parties, like the Green party - https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/jill-stein/policies/immigration/border-security - but the problem is that federal office likely remains out of reach for most of these parties, where pro-immigrant policies would likely see the widest impact.

[–] Suavevillain 5 points 6 days ago

Because liberals have openly shifted towards the right. They have no issue throwing people under the bus. Each day there is more in common between the two major parties.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Democratic consultants think they can beat the Republicans on immigration, when instead they're making it an election issue. Just dumb, they need to get replaced.

[–] Twinklebreeze 1 points 5 days ago

Immigration doesn't win elections, so why would any party care?

[–] Sarmyth -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

There isn't and shouldn't be a party for immigrants. Once they are citizens they fall under an umbrella that should be supported by a party, but until they can vote and have made the commitment of citizenship, our government shouldn't take their wants into account (besides obvious human decency and needs).

Only in America do we concern ourselves with this. It should be made so good for citizens that people want to immigrate here and become citizens themselves. That is the only method I want to expend effort on to make immigrants lives better than they already are just by leaving their home country.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Our government takes our wants into account? Does it even take our needs and decency into account? I know it at least considers how much GDP I contribute and whether I can become cannon fodder.

[–] Sarmyth 1 points 6 days ago

Getting downvoted by people with no explanation so I'll assume it's people who just want to push a "both sides" narrative.

Dasvidaniya

[–] daikiki 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I just can't with this shit any more. For all intents and purposes, we have two parties in this country. One of them incites idiots to kill immigrants and gleefully admits doing so. The other party knows that immigrants are people. And somehow the headline ends up being ... this slop.

Because Democrats are apparently not enthusiastic enough about immigrants? Or maybe just because the media is vile and only cares about the media. Either way, this is awful reporting. Equating Republicans with Democrats on immigration in any way is astoundingly dishonest and the article fails in every possible way to justify the headline.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

If they don't want to be equated with republicans then they should stop taking up republican policy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

I sympathize with you, but at the same time your description is inaccurate. You wrote that people are equating the Republicans with the Democrats on immigration. I don't think that's true, because the Democrats aren't spreading stories about cat eating Haitians, for example.

But Kamala Harris is trying to adopt a very strong border policy, and she's certainly not trying to emphasize that immigrants are people, and that we should care about and support people who are fleeing deadly situations in their home countries. Remember the immigration bill, the one that gave Republicans much of what they wanted? The Democrats were on board with that, and eventually Trump had to shoot it down because he thought it would be better for him politically.

One argument was that the Democrats would give the Republicans everything they wanted, and this would show that actually the Democrats are good at getting things done, and that it was a political decision but not necessarily a moral one.

I'm not accusing you of anything, but many people in the last few months have gotten upset when the Democrats are attacked for having dodgy positions on issues, and they say that that's only helping the Republicans. I totally disagree with this. There are no perfect candidates, and pointing out a weak point of a candidate doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for them. Rather, it's a reminder that politics is not pretty and we have to do the best we can.

[–] linearchaos 6 points 1 week ago

During the presidential debate, Harris expressed intent to be harder on immigration.

Unfortunately, in the give and take of politics, this is one of the areas where we will fall back to in an attempt to sway the right and avoid veering into authoritarian territory.

Ideally, I would like to see the far-right diminish entirely after this crazy God King crap passes, allowing for a new progressive movement to emerge and people to actually get stuff done with regards to immigration.

[–] return2ozma 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Please read the article before doing a knee jerk reaction to the headline.

Over the past year in particular, Democrats have abandoned the positive arguments for immigration and its benefits and contributions to American life that were standard for both the party and American tradition — a positive vision that was politically successful for them during the Trump years. Instead, they have taken the cowardly option of trying to outdo Republicans over who can be harsher immigration hawks.

Since this is a game Democrats can never win — there is virtually no inhumane policy they could adopt or carry out that will make voters view Republicans as softer on immigration — they have received no discernible political benefit from this. Which, of course, hasn’t changed their thinking an iota.

So now we have the Kamala Harris campaign not just constantly touting a terrible immigration bill and its legally dubious ending of the right to asylum, but even promising to build Trump’s border wall, for years the physical symbol of the cruelty, racism, and stupidity of Trump’s immigration agenda. The Democrats’ promise to clamp down on asylum seekers, incidentally, would negatively affect at least some of the same Haitian migrants in Springfield whom Republicans are inciting violence against.

As we’ve seen so many times in American politics, the appalling behavior of the Right gives the liberal center a largely free pass on its own misdeeds.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Collective cognitive dissonance is real . We can do better.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker 0 points 1 week ago

Jacobin - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Jacobin:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://jacobin.com/2024/09/springfield-ohio-haitian-migrants-trump
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] blazera -2 points 1 week ago