155
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 05 Jun 2024
155 points (94.3% liked)
News
23275 readers
3451 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Republican immigration reform. Lets be clear, it was a lift and shift of what would have been the most draconian shift in US immigration policy in US history. Its a good thing that it wasn't passed.
My point is POTUS has no power over immigration policy. All he can do is detain, turn away, or follow existing policy creating homeless migrants in sanctuary cities. The ones who are responsible for how immigrants and migrants are supported upon entry are the ones criticizing him.
It’s like if your team half-asses a project, and your boss cancels the project because it’s a failure, are you going to criticize the boss for cancelling the failed project?
He's literally pushing for a republican policy that is extremely anti immigrant and most likely illegal due to denying asylum seekers
No, he’s not. He’s implementing an Executive Order. That’s not immigration policy.
Executive Orders can be used to close the border or detain until suitable housing is available. They cannot be used to increase funding for support of migrants in sanctuary cities, nor can they reform the policy on naturalization. That requires congressional legislation.
The bill he keeps pushing is a republicans wet dream. This is is way of doing it while congress rightly doesn't touch it.
It's literally blocking asylum. That's the EO
Without hyperbole, it’s an Executive Order that restricts the influx at the border. It’s one of his three options.
Turn away at border
Detain until housing is available
Do nothing (Follow current congressional immigration policy and continue busing migrants to be homeless in sanctuary cities)
What do you suggest instead, given his limited power?
Not do any of it as it's only an issue because of Republican framing
That is not accurate. Immigration right now is causing a variety of problems, including for those migrating. I recommend reading this for an explanation of the current issues and some independent ideas on how to solve them.
None of what that expert suggested are covered here
That’s because that’s a comprehensive list of issues. I was providing Biden’s options for addressing those issues. He has no power to support them outside of extending stay, restricting entry or detainment. I did forget to mention that he also has the power to deport, but that’s even less helpful to our concerns.
https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/president-legal-authority-2014-08-20.pdf
https://maxlawinc.com/what-power-does-the-president-actually-have-over-immigration/
Doing nothing is the third option. That defaults to the current immigration policy that was written in 1986 with some asylum assistance added only for minors in 2019. The assistance for minors was what Trump twisted into Title 42, when he detained children and deported their parents.
There is nothing mandating that border cities host any migrants, so they get bused to sanctuary cities. It’s up to sanctuary cities to offer housing based on state budget. When housing runs out, migrants are homeless.
It only blocks asylum seekers.
It's also how trump did his Muslim ban which was already ruled illegal. So why is Biden doing it except to screw over those seeking asylum?
Asylum seekers are categorized with migrants at the border. They only differ in desire to get a job once they enter. They’re given one year of amnesty to determine if they want to naturalize or move to another nation. They’re offered free housing in sanctuary cities. The cities are now full from lack of state funding and no Federal support. Congress failed to pass reform that could support these cities or mandate acceptance in other cities. There’s nothing left to do but choose from the three options I mentioned above.
Immigrants are people who enter the nation with intent to naturalize. They have more Federal rights than migrants, but a more complex legal journey ahead.
The Muslim ban was discriminatory trash, and nothing like this. It outlawed any immigration (asylum seekers, refugees, migrants, or immigrants) for Muslims or “suspected Muslims.” It absolutely was illegal, and despicable to boot.
Again this is Biden doing the Muslim ban for legally protected asylum seekers.
This is only an EO for those protected people.
Do you have a source on the discrimination in this Executive Order? I haven’t seen anything on religious restrictions in any articles.
Or is your confusion still on the terms migrant and asylum seeker? They’re not people of a specific religion.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/
Immigrants are not provided with emergency housing, so we can accept them. We simply do not have the housing that we guarantee migrants seeking asylum, so the options are homelessness, detainment, or restriction on entry.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1
Yes the order that blocks asylum is totally only blocking migrants
You should read up on the rights of migrant and asylum seekers if you don’t want to take my word for it. Your lack of understanding of the issue, and now willful ignorance to information provided, proves you’d rather protect your opinion than understand the problem.
You still have yet to make a suggestion of what should be done instead. You’ve only criticized what Biden is doing.
Please explain then oh great one how this is only going to affect migrants and not do anything to limit protection for asylum seekers
Real answers?
Biden stopped growing in his understanding of politics in 1992. He thinks he can get voters this way.
That’s a real opinion.
A real answer is to address the overcrowding and homelessness issues in sanctuary cities due to congressional failure to replace immigration policy from 1986.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1200
Just to be clear, this is a false choice fallacy you are engaged in.
There is an infinite series of other options and approaches that Biden could take to immigration reform. Its a choice of his to both a) accept the right wing framing of this issue and b), to adopt Republican policy on this issue.
Biden has chosen both of those options.
You don’t understand how the government works if you think POTUS has unlimited power outside of a National Emergency. He has the ability to control the border with Executive Order. Immigration policy is created by Congress.
What do you suggest he do instead?
You are projecting and some how have maintained a total ignorance of the 117th US congress.
Biden had a bill in the house that he wanted them to pass.
It was a horrible draconian border bill with terrible policies in it. It was a total lift and shift of the same terrible polices Republicans support. If it wasn't for the self-cuck that MAGA engaged in, it would have become law.
Biden could take another approach. Maybe something people who would actually vote for him would like in regards to border policy. Maybe fix H1B's and our broken education visa-system.
No. No Biden isn't interested in any of that. Biden wants a Republican border policy.
If Republicans wont pass Republican border policy, can you please explain how the policies you suggest are passed?
Ah yes, the false premise again.
The same way literally every law or policy has ever been passed will ever be passed. You and your surrogates take the policies into the public conversation advocate for them, and you convert people into adopting your position. You convince the voters of the politicians that your policy is the better policy, and you engage those voters in converting that politician. You form coalitions and you build the rhetorical case for whatever it is that you are doing. Its literally the work of all of politics.
You may not have been exposed to that because you've probably developed your political understanding under decades of Democratic rule where the only political maneuvers they know are 'heal' and "roll over". But technically it is possible for Democrats to fight for good policies and get them into law, even if they seem physically incapable of it in their modern manifestation.
So I can understand if you are confused by the idea that Democrats could actually engage in leadership, but in-fact, it is actually what they are elected to do. If the American voters wanted Republican policies coming out of the White House, be it in the form of administrative orders or in the bills they are promoting in congress, they could have just voted Republican.
It's not a false premise to ask how the hell you expect policy to pass within the current makeup of Congress. You can just say you don't have an answer. You don't have to type several paragraphs dodging the question every time.
Of course. There would never be answer you could accept because your question isn't being asked in good faith.
It's not bad faith to ask you to support your claims. You can't just scream "bad faith" whenever you get stuck. It's not gonna work. Have a good night!
You aren't a person who deserves charity. You are never arguing in good faith.
You failed to support your argument, and blamed it on your opinion of the character of the commenter who asked for it. You may want to take a look in the mirror.
That sounds like the Republican politicians I know- converted to supporting Democrat policies through public opinion.
That's just.. literally all of what politics is. Democrats should be doing the same things. It's literally what we elected them to do.
Can you name a time in the relatively recent past when it has happened?