-19
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
-19 points (19.4% liked)
Conservative
383 readers
13 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Its not that. Its the timing. Hes changing policies in the short term, and as soon as hes elected hell go right back to letting everyone in.
But he isn’t letting everyone in. Very important point.
Oh so your problem with it is what you think he’s going to do in the future after he’s re-elected, rather than the thing he actually did?
He did it for the last 3 and a half years. Do you really think hes going to stop now?
Which is my point exactly.
When he does something Repubs don’t like, rage.
When he does something Repubs like, rage anyway over perceived incoming unlikable thing.
What if you’re wrong and he doesn’t reverse this later? Also why don’t you conserve your rage until you have something tangible in this situation to rage about?
I know a family trying to take a three week vacation to the US. They applied for a visa. They need to do an interview to get the visa. The interview is scheduled a year and a half from the day they applied and is on a random weekday in a city 8 hours from where they live. They don't live in the middle of nowhere, they live in a huge city with a population of over 15 million.
They applied in 2023. Is this considered letting everyone in?
I have a coworker who's here on a work visa. He has a master's degree and works in a high demand field, making over 200k a year. His visa renewal was rejected and he has to leave in a few months. Do you consider this letting everyone in?
What's your reasoning for thinking that he lets everyone in?
The problem is that they're trying to do it legally.
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/detentionstats/pop_agen_table.html
38000 ppl currently detained by ice and cbp for illegal border crossing. That's a lot of ppl not being let in.
Thats magnitudes less than the millions Border Patrol catches and releases every year. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
That's millions by year and my statistic is for a month. Looks like your statistic shows 170k encounters for the most recent month which is what we should compare to the 38k detained.
That's roughly just under a quarter of encounters getting detained. Being encountered but not detained doesn't mean they are let into the US. They get sent back. Detaining people costs more money than sending people back.
No, theyre detained for a little bit and released into the US
https://truthout.org/articles/dont-let-bidens-latest-protections-excuse-his-rightward-lurch-on-immigration/
Increased ice budget
That is the issue.