Funny how none of the solutions to try and curb illegal immigration fall on the business owners who knowingly hire them. Enact jail time for those business owners, and see how quickly the demand dries up. No coincidence that most of these business owners are Republican. They want a permanent underclass of vulnerable workers they can exploit.
Funny how none of the solutions to try and curb illegal immigration fall on the business owners who knowingly hire them.
They do... kinda. This problem peaked under COVID, when you had fruit rotting in fields thanks to our sudden crack down on migrant travel. We saw a similar sudden drop in available farm labor back in 2017, when Trump was ramping up border enforcement against seasonal laborers.
No coincidence that most of these business owners are Republican.
That's more a correlation than causation. Blue collar business owners tend to skew Republican because Republicans cater to the anti-union and anti-poc proclivities of socially conservative white nationalist land barons. When Dems were the party of the apartheid-era South, they dominated this same voting block.
But the brutal treatment of migrant workers has had a socio-economic impact on Gulf Coast states. Florida's orange production has dropped from 240M pounds in 2004 to 16M in 2024. Supplies of meat and dairy produce have sagged as ranchers from Nevada to Alabama to Iowa are running out of cheap exploitable laborers. More and more businesses are turning to the carceral state to provide field hands, but even that doesn't work well in states where people aren't having kids to lock up and the existing prisoner base is aging past the point of functional field labor.
Even with the most sadistic and malicious attitude towards your fellow humans, this isn't a profitable economic policy. It is being driven largely be the outright terror wealthier white land owners have of the young Spanish speaking migrants that dominate their workforce.
The White House is finalizing plans for a U.S.-Mexico border clampdown that would shut off asylum requests and automatically deny entrance to migrants once the number of people encountered by American border officials exceeded a new daily threshold, with President Joe Biden expected to sign an executive order as early as Tuesday, according to four people familiar with the matter.
The president has been weighing additional executive action since the collapse of a bipartisan border bill earlier this year.
The Biden administration has grown ever more conservative on border issues as the president faces ceaseless criticism from Republicans and there are large numbers of migrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico who are not easily returned, especially as global displacement grows from war, climate change and more.
sounds like a right leaning conservative to me
what about additional executive action on anything else like women's rights, minimum wage, or anything that could count toward the human good
Neoliberals have coopted the term progressive, just like they coopt, whitewash, and scrub away all of our movements.
This is a failure of Congress. Biden only has three options. Turn them away at the border, detain, or nothing. Nothing defaults to current immigration policy of busing from border cities to sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are at capacity, so the migrants would be homeless upon arrival. What do you propose he do? Turn away, detain, or leave them homeless in overcrowded sanctuary cities?
.
Your "minimum wage" link states multiple times that it is only for federal employees, not for the general population. There are still states where you can get less than 10$/h.
.
Greetings from $8.75/hr land
Greeting from $7.25/hr land!
Well yeah he's a Federal Executive office holder. Is anyone confused about that? Anyone not understand the difference between state and federal government?
sounds like a right leaning conservative to me
There have been leftists who were also anti-immigration. Cesar Chavez campaigned against illegal immigration as he saw those immigrants as a main source of scab labor. The main economic argument against an open border policy is that it depresses wages.
It just happens to be that the right uses anti-immigration more as it is the easiest economic giveaway to low wage citizens.
Sounds like you don’t know the difference between presidential and congressional power.
Only Congress can issue immigration reform and increase the budget for sanctuary cities.
POTUS can only allow entry, detain, or turn away at the border.
Our sanctuary cities are at capacity.
What do you want him to do?
Most progressive president since FDR?
Really shows how low that bar was/is
Thats whats crazy. I just want these people to stop gaslighting us into thinking Biden was even within pissing distance to FDR.
Its just such bad faith to equate the two.
Serious question: who was a more progressive POTUS since FDR?
There hasnt been, what with the rightward drift of the Democratic party. The problem is he is not a progressive.
We've done better on two fronts, gay and civil rights.
Aside from that we are more right leaning by every other metric. Him being 80% less progressive than FDR is not a flex.
Edit: have fun losing this election. Yall are so out of touch with the people if you think Joe Biden is progressive.
.
Migrants come here for jobs. Until employers who violate federal and state laws on employment of unauthorized residents are held criminally liable, migrants will keep coming.
This is not rocket science. Any other measure is red herring to keep two party circle jerking going.
Bipartisanship only moves in one direction, and it is right.
Fuck this. These people are fleeing horrible situations. We should be welcoming everyone to this country.
But won't you think of Kevin from Nowhere, Idaho and his very real fear that droving gangs of bloodthirsty, drug-fuelled migrants will vote in his local elections? THINK OF THE KEVINS! /s
Situations often caused by US policy like the drug war, or as a result of climate change. Climate refugees are only going to get more common too.
Limiting migration out of the country, that is.
Migrants are given one year of free housing to decide if they want to naturalize or move to another nation. Current immigration law leaves hosting up to individual cities, without Federal mandates for participation. Sanctuary cities are at capacity, and are using a turnstile system to allow new migrants in as existing migrants leave.
POTUS can control detainment or turn away migrants at the border with the power of Executive Order.
Turning migrants away resulted in increased deaths in Mexico, while detainment is clearly not reasonably hospitable to people in need.
Honest question- besides the obvious solution of congressional immigration reform giving migrants the right to assisted stay in places other than sanctuary cities, what should Biden do? Turn away, detain, or overcrowd sanctuary cities?
We could increase funding and streamline the path to citizenship to meet the levels of immigration instead of letting a massive backlog build up that will only make the problem worse.
I agree. That the congressional immigration reform that I mentioned. Only Congress can increase the budget. Biden repealed Title 42 and left the border open while pressing Congress for that exact legislation. They haven’t legislated a full reform since 1986. The reform passed in 2019 was for minors and an amendment tied to border security. Trump twisted the mandatory acceptance for minors into Title 42, detaining them while deporting their parents.
https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6
So with congressional reform options aside, what do you think Biden should do?
He could not actively make it worse by implementing counterproductive limitations.
You’re vaguely stating what he shouldn’t do. Which of his three options do you think is best? Turn away, detain, or nothing and overcrowd sanctuary cities with homeless migrants?
Biden wouldn't be overcrowding sanctuary cities, that would be the result of obstruction in congress.
That is also the least worst thing he could do, nothing at all. All of the other options are worse because of congressional obstruction.
It’s not about blame, it’s about resources. If a sanctuary city states they’re at capacity, they no longer can provide housing for the migrants.
Doing nothing results in following existing immigration policy. Migrants would be bused from border cities to sanctuary cities. Without housing, the migrants would be homeless in the overcrowded sanctuary cities. Are you suggesting that’s the better option for migrants, or suggesting he does it to deflect the blame back on to Congress?
Releasing that pressure by denying migrants the proper asylum process means that the problem can be ignored for longer instead of the sanctuary cities applying more pressure for actual change.
This is a counterproductive band aid.
They’ve been asking for support since last year. Congress failed to pass a bill.
Republucans obstructed the bill they asked for. It will take longer than a year to overcome that hurdle.
It’s been almost forty years since comprehensive immigration reform was passed. The problem is Congress, not POTUS. Biden only has the three options I mentioned above.
He has a fourth option to do nothing about it because that is better than those three options. Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something.
Doing nothing is the same as overcrowding sanctuary cities. Doing nothing defaults to current immigration policy of busing migrants from border cities to sanctuary cities. They have no housing, so the migrants would be homeless. Allowing them to get housing elsewhere requires an act of Congress. Those are literally his options.
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.