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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
This is such a cluster. The right is obviously doing this just to "own the libs", but really, what is the end game here? There are plenty of liberals that are seeking serious policies that address the border w/o the dumb posturing of the far right that are mostly about white supremacy. If the right was even remotely serious about immigration, they would be calling for imprisoning those that employ undocumented workers and if the right's concerns were only about economic anxiety, that would take care of most of this jibber jabber, though of course, there would still be the matter of asylum seekers.
How many on the right are doing this, though?
It's so hard to have a serious conversation about this. Of course, the very fringes of the left (and they are probably a very tiny, but overly vocal minority that make it easy for the far right to point at the most ridiculous examples and say we are all like this) don't help by painting everything as being a simplistic white=bad, POC=good. I would argue nearly everyone wants some control of our borders and who gets in and how they are vetted and most of this sentiment is not racially motivated. It's just a matter of degrees as to how much control, how many people and so on.
When it comes to asylum seekers, the right almost universally refuses to consider the holistic picture and America's hand in creating the outcomes of having asylum seekers in the first place...
Border states have been ignored for decades. Once Spanish was a language you heard across America, people paid more attention.
Where should these 90k people live? That's an honest question. It is. Should they get housing when homeless Americans don't? Should they be given a bus voucher that can't be sold? What are border states supposed to do?
If a real border could be done while handling environmental and race concerns, I'm down for it. Climate change may make this all seem timid and we're acting like that's not a thing.
How about housing both groups? Last I checked, America had a lot of space.
Whose responsibility would that be? State, federal, city, county?
How about all of them working together?
This may surprise you but not all of us reject people based on skin color or ethnicity. Cities, especially, have always included people of many ethnicities and speaking many languages. You’d have to go very far back to find a tone when Spanish was uncommon in many Northern cities
Homeless people are homeless people, and 90k is not that large a number relative to the entire population