this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
388 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1967 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Dan Pfeiffer: “To summarize, Johnson demands a border bill in exchange for passing Ukraine aid; the White House and Senate work on a border bill; Johnson opposes the bill without even seeing it, despite repeatedly declaring that the ‘crisis at the border’ is the House GOP’s top priority.”

“Some commentary suggests that Johnson keeps moving the goalpost to prevent his caucus from having to vote on Ukraine aid, which is vehemently opposed by MAGA Republicans but enthusiastically supported by the Republican establishment and more moderate GOPers. With Johnson in perpetual danger of being McCarthy-ed, I am sure avoiding a tough vote is a factor. However, I think Johnson and the Republicans have another more nefarious reason — they want a crisis at the border to help them in the election.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

51st state? How about 51-65th state? Have you ever spoken to a Mexican that lives in Mexico?

It's pretty clear the mexican population would rather be part of our country, and not separated by all these barriers.

It's not at all clear that that's the case.

And once, most of western America WAS part of Mexico.

Maybe you should give those lands back to Mexico. Way fewer people would be changing countries than if Mexico joined the USA.

allow our capitalism to help put money into the coffers of the people of mexico

You know that they have capitalism in Mexico too right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes I've been to Mexico more times than I can count, and every part of it and I do speak Spanish so it's been very rewarding. And they all say they are envious of my life here in the U.S. and that they wish they had our opportunities.

You do know that even though they have capitalism in Mexico, it doesn't trickle down to benefit any of the people there, right?

I just do not understand why every concept that might work always has to be questioned this way as if it was anymore ridiculous or intolerable than he current migrant situation at the border.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As a Canadian I also sometimes envy the opportunities that exist in the USA but I absolutely would not want Canada to be a 51st (& 52nd?) state. (Not would I actually seek to move there)

You do know that even though they have capitalism in Mexico, it doesn't trickle down to benefit any of the people there, right?

Yes, this is an inherent challenge with capitalism (capital concentration).

I just do not understand why every concept that might work always has to be questioned this way as if it was anymore ridiculous or intolerable than he current migrant situation at the border.

I mean I think it's important to question ideas before implementing them, but you're right that your country (and mine) have some serious challenges to tackle with respect to migration. Mexico also struggles with migration across its southern (and coastal?) border(s).

It looks like in 2013 about 60% of Mexicans favoured forming a single country with the USA (if doing so would improve their standard of living). That data is over 10 years old and a lot has changed since then but honestly it's higher than I would have thought.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well Canada is a great country also, I've been to all the provinces and I spent a couple weeks in Banff and one of the other national parks that I somehow got lost in and had fun finding my way around.

I think Canada is much more independent and well developed than Mexico. My suggestion about Mexico was only in regard to their struggles to be as independent and gain some financial well being as a people.

After all I'm merely making a hypothetical suggestion, and not saying it would be easy or could happen overnight. Frankly I'm just a "world without borders" kind of idiotic optimist. I think we make the immigration situation so much harder by denying people the right to even set foot in another country. I'm sure most Mexican nationals would prefer to stay in Mexico if they had the same economic opportunities (and could live without fear of the cartels).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm also interested in reducing barriers to migration from a human rights perspective.

But I think we need to reduce international disparities in standard of living before open borders would really work.

I think trade penalties against countries with high degrees of wealth concentration and/or without living wage regulations etc might help. Idk.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

I agree. I feel that we can reduce those disparities if we have more open congress between us and the people we view as "others." At any rate, I don't think building high walls and putting up razor wire is ever going to be a good solution to anything going on in the world.