355
Texas Lt. Guv Threatens to Take Biden Off State’s Ballot After Colorado Ruling
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
355 points (94.7% liked)
politics
21725 readers
7523 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
I think what we need to do to help alleviate some of the immigration issues is not to build a wall and keep them completely out, but to build a better gate. Our immigration system is broken and terribly understaffed, a lot of it is by design because people would rather have an issue to complain about rather thannsolve the problem.
We need immigrant labor and a lot of folks need jobs, so we rework the system to provide more temporary work permits to begin with. There is a system to do this already, it is just woefully inadequate.
Second, we set up a system where people aren't necessarily instantly rejected for asylum at the border. That would keep a lot of people from having to cross the border illegally just to try to claim asylum (which is unfortunately the current process). At the border, anyone claiming asylum could be processed, a background check run and a preliminary determination before a judge. At that point, it could be determined if the person has family or some support system in the US and they can possibly be released with an ankle bracelet to that support, confined until the asylum verdict, or deported immediately if they fail a background check.
This sort of process does three things.
Allows tracking for more immigrants that are going through the asylum process legitimately.
Allows legitimate migrant workers to be here legally which allows us to better track their whereabouts and deport them if needed. It also protects them from being abused by people who currently bring them over illegally. Keep in mind, lots of migrants like this just come here for a few months to work and then are happy to go back home.
Cuts down on who is actually crossing the border illegally. If you provide mechanisms for people to work here legitimately, apply for asylum without illegally crossing the border, then the people who do illegally cross are going to be fewer and much more likely to be the people you really want to keep out.
The problem here is you are trying to resolve the problem. The thing is Republicans don't want to solve the immigration issues. They want to use immigrates as scape goats, distractions, and hot button issues that get their base riled up.
This sounds like the start of immigration reform. The big problem with that is, if there is immigration reform how do the politicians scare people into voting for them?
There is this toxic idea in national politics that if you fix a big problem you are undercutting your strategy for reelection because you don't have a scare tactic.
Results are boring, fear drives engagement.
Here's a rundown from reason.
This just sounds like make it easier and more peaceful while exploiting our neighbors to the south. It's not all that far from "we need slaves, so lets make it easier for desperate people to come here so we can enslave them".
I'd say actual solutions involve ending exploitation of our brothers and sisters south of an imaginary border, ending drug wars, and letting prices for products made cheap by exploitation reflect what it actually takes to produce them.
To equate a person that willingly goes to a place then works for money, to a slave, is disrespectful to people experiencing actual slavery.
You say "willingly" coming here to work for money, I say came here in "desperation" only to make enough to survive in poverty. Giving somebody a couple bucks rather than a bowl of soup is the difference between slavery and exploited "employees" given poverty wages.
No, choose is the difference. Slavery is an imprisoned state, where one cannot leave or choose to go other places.
It's not uncommon for people to be "willing come here to work for money," then get their paperwork held by their "employer", payed much less than they were promised, and forced to do labor under the risk of imprisonment and deportation (and, in some cases, such as those found during "Operation Blooming Onion, under gunpoint).
Yeah I think that could qualify. I think of slavery in terms of violence-based coercion, and direct physical control like chains and fences. But what you’re describing is essentially the same thing.
Well we have to start somewhere. These people are already being exploited and in horrible positions. We do a lot of foreign aid work in these countries as it is, but a lot of time the money just gets passed around to corrupt officials. If people want to come to the US and work, then the money goes to them directly and they will often send money back to their families and it does more good that way. Plus, if they come here legally to work, then they would be able to earn minimum wage, maybe limited benefits.
If they have no place to migrate back to, and they don't meet the overly stringent qualifications to be allowed asylum, why would we "really want to keep them out?" Right now, people are risking their lives to cross the southern border, so I assume they are extremely desperate (fleeing conditions they are unable to survive in and/or violence). The asylum courts in Texas often have toddlers (1/3 of asylum seekers are children) appear in court by themselves, without counsel, to try to defend themselves.
The biggest "issue" I see with immigration is that it's criminalized, which allows the horrible exploitation of their labor (whether farm, factory, construction, or sex work).
Please explain to me how you think we should deal with the massive narco-terrorist network that the United States is currently fueling. You seem to think this is a simple problem to deal with, and you can boil it down to ending the war on drugs.
I have my own thoughts about what that would or could look like as someone who has worked on the legal and illegal side of the trade my entire adult life (until recently). I'm always interested to hear how people think the functional reality of this might work because generally they haven't actually thought through the nitty-gritty details.
The narco-terrorists exist more because our "war on drugs" fuels a huge black market. This is similar to how the mafia rose in power during prohibition. The answer to that issue lies more in the legalization of drugs rather than immigration
I'm fully aware of the cause and effect relationship. See where I said I was part of that particular economic circle? The problem is that ending the war on drugs necessarily means legal profiteering by some interested party off those same drugs. You are only replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. This will have all kinds of wide-sweeping effects, many of which won't be obvious or predictable, and some of course that will be.
Just so we are clear, I am in favor of legalizing and regulating most drugs. However, you will notice that we are currently in a major pattern of socio-economic warfare against the legal opioid drug cartels like Purdue Pharma. If you think assholes like the Sackler family are bad, wait until you realize what it would be like when every single bio-pharmeceutical giant is lobbying to release designer drugs for profit. It can get MUCH worse than you imagine. Trust me.