The White House is considering executive action that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border to migrants crossing unlawfully, according to three sources familiar with the matter—a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.
And you all told me the blue maga border bill that Republicans rejected was 4d chess.
I won’t rehash my opinions, they already been better said here, but I want to add I hate the phrase “close the border”. What the fuck does that mean, was it open, did the last one in forget to close the door?
From the article, he is considering taking action “to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally” which has a lot more nuance and is important to the discussion. So this will specifically affect people who have a legitimate claim to asylum, the border was never “open” to any migrants without it (or a visa).
“Close the border” is ridiculous rhetoric which appeals to far too many of the electorate. Unfortunately, we need to change opinions on the ground before it’s no longer viable to use.
I think that’s why framing the debate is so important.
This isn’t magically closing the border, this is just adding a new punishment for a small subset of people who cross illegally. Whether or not it will be effective is very debatable (if barbed wire doesn’t…)
We should be talking more about the backlog in asylum cases, why aren’t we providing adequate funding for the courts to do their job.
Why do we make asylum seekers wait so long to seek asylum and get authorization to work, how does this do anything but place a burden on support systems?
And so on. This isn’t about stopping immigration, it’s about punishing those who do. [Too] Many will still support that, but it’s a harder stance to take.
“It’s okay to do deplorable things today if it means we might get more votes for it tomorrow. Then we’ll focus on all the good things we talk about doing someday”
Law states that legality of crossing has no effect on validity of asylum cases. I guess we’re ok with doing whatever we want to cater to a republican base that won’t vote for a dem.
I won’t rehash my opinions, they already been better said here, but I want to add I hate the phrase “close the border”. What the fuck does that mean, was it open, did the last one in forget to close the door?
From the article, he is considering taking action “to restrict migrants’ ability to seek asylum at the US-Mexico border if they crossed illegally” which has a lot more nuance and is important to the discussion. So this will specifically affect people who have a legitimate claim to asylum, the border was never “open” to any migrants without it (or a visa).
“Close the border” is ridiculous rhetoric which appeals to far too many of the electorate. Unfortunately, we need to change opinions on the ground before it’s no longer viable to use.
I think that’s why framing the debate is so important.
And so on. This isn’t about stopping immigration, it’s about punishing those who do. [Too] Many will still support that, but it’s a harder stance to take.
This is some straight up “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” shit right here.
“You need to change opinions in a democracy in order to succeed in changing policy in a democracy.”
Care to elaborate how that’s got anything to do with the road to hell being paved with good intentions?
“It’s okay to do deplorable things today if it means we might get more votes for it tomorrow. Then we’ll focus on all the good things we talk about doing someday”
Except tomorrow never comes.
Law states that legality of crossing has no effect on validity of asylum cases. I guess we’re ok with doing whatever we want to cater to a republican base that won’t vote for a dem.