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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
According to the DHS,
I don't have the numbers for all of 2023 in front of me but they're higher than the ones for 2022. (And keep in mind that not everyone crossing the border files an asylum application.)
Hundreds of thousands more people than normal are entering across the border, and existing systems for accommodating them are overwhelmed. Maybe the best solution is not closing the border, but thinking that there is no problem is inconsistent with reality.
Yeah it sounds like we need to better fund our asylum program.
Crazy idea, but we all came to this country as immigrants, and wiped out most of the population that was already here. Seems a little ironic to me that we're now concerned about who can and can't live here.
I live in New York City, where as of the beginning of December 2023,
That's about 2% of the population of the city. The ones still in shelters have more than doubled the city's homeless population. If we stopped being concerned about these people then they would be outside without food and shelter, and it gets quite cold around here. However, being concerned about them is projected to cost the city more than ten billion dollars over the next three years, which is a lot of money even for a city this big.
Something needs to be done at the federal level. Right now the federal government is letting a lot of people in and then doing very little to take care of them once they're in the country, and that's not working.
I agree, we should be helping people that come into this country seeking refuge from war, and shitty economic conditions in their own countries, not demonizing them.
We aren't doing that, we are instead using them as political pawns for browny points with each political parties respective base. Instead of seeing them as people.
so you agree this is really just a funding issue at the federal level?
youre of course pushing your representatives to increase funding for all immigration programs, right?
There are two separate questions here.
Do I think this could be solved with (much) more funding at the federal level? Yes, that's one way to do it, and better than letting people in without allocating such funding.
Do I think that's the ideal solution? No, I don't think the USA should be letting in everyone who crosses the border, with little to no screening. There are many people who have applied through official channels and waited for many years; let them in first rather than rewarding the ones who skip the line.
(Australia has a policy that asylum seekers who arrive without a visa will be sheltered in refugee camps until it is safe for them to leave, but they will not be allowed to move freely in the country or given any more opportunities to become permanent residents than they would have had if they applied for a visa. I think something like that may be a good idea.)
both things here are resolved with solid immigration funding.
yep, we should be letting Everyone.. at least to the door, where we can then screen them. and then take appropriate action.
you do have a point that the immigration process is broken. that it takes a decade to get in is absolutely due to racism and conservative policies, which requires more than funding... it would take compassionate politicians.
I'm an immigrant myself. I came here with a refugee visa when I was a child, and that was extremely fortunate for me - the place where I was born is now a war zone. I'm a strong supporter of allowing in the people who have applied, passed all the checks, and waited patiently. It's a win-win situation, good for the immigrants and good for this country. I'm saying that so you can understand where I'm coming from. I'm not afraid of or hostile to immigrants, I just want the current, broken system fixed in a way that's fair to the people who are trying to come here legally. I don't see that happening soon.
"Fuck you, I got mine"
The conservative motto.
This is a stupid and unnecessary rebuttal. You may not agree but at least be somewhat charitable. They aren't saying close the borders to everyone. The individual is just asking that the rest follow the same path he/she did. That's all. I don't understand this vitriol on social media.
sounds like we need to floood our immigration system with cash so we can finally help all those human beings. you want to help human beings, right?
When does it become time to deal with the issues that are driving "hundreds of thousands more people than normal" to come across the border? When do we send troops south to deal with the issues driving people to come north?
"There are too many refugees coming from over there, let's turn it into a warzone, those don't produce so many refugees" like, come on now
I see, so we should just continue doing what we have been doing, and hope for different results. We should just stand by and watch as the situation worsens, as the rates increase, and continue to do nothing about it.
Like, come on now.
Yes, any military action would increase the number of refugees. But, we would also be able to establish refugee centers within their borders, instead of our own. And, the increase would be temporary, and eventually lower the total number.
If Abbott is ready to commit Texas troops to solve the problem, let's go ahead and deploy them to El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras, and solve the problem at its source.
The US doesn't have the best track record with nation building.
Point taken. Counterpoint: What's El Salvador's record on nation building?
What nation has the best record? Let's invite them to take charge.
never.
we should gladly accept all decent humans who want a peaceful life regardless... why are you so against adding human beings to our economy?
So, the people remaining in Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico... They don't have a reasonable expectation of a "peaceful life"? We only decide to give a shit about them if they can figure out how to make it to the US border? "Fuck'em" if they can't leave?
hahaah wow, talk about moving the goal posts. no one is saying what youre implying. i understand theres more to immigration, but maintain some context.
this is discussion about immigrants at the US border.
Where do you think I initially placed the "goal posts", and where do you think I moved them to?
Hi, I'm "no one". I'm saying it. When do we tackle the underlying problem? When do we start doing something about why people are immigrating?
There is clearly a worsening humanitarian crisis occurring in Central America, evidenced by the increasing rate of refugees seeking to enter the US. When do we address it?
im not disagreeing with you other than the fact youre changing the conversation from 'what should america do with all these immigrants at the border" to "why are all these immigrants at our border"
2 completely different conversations. but, you do you
What do the immigrants need? To answer that, you first have to ask why they are here. When your conversation finally gets around to asking that question, you'll be having my conversation.
Catch up. Quickly, please: people are suffering while you're fucking around in the past.
no, i dont. my problem is with current immigration policy, regardless of why they are at the border.
You can't establish a reasonable policy on immigration without asking why people are emigrating. You need to ask why they are coming here long before you consider policy.
i get it , you suffer from some sort of roadblock you cant get past regarding origin. it must be hard being stuck in that place.
you do you, but i will be pushing for immigration reform at the border regardless of origin.
we should put this back to our pre-'24 order of allowing all immigrants unless they fail screening criteria, regardless of origin.
did i say regardless of origin enough? cuz it feels like i didnt point out how incredibly irrelevant that is when theyre standing at the gates.
Red herring. My question was not "where did they come from". My question was "why did they come".
If they are here because they want to be here, great, the more the merrier.
If they are here because they aren't safe where they actually want to be, we should be making them safe where they actually want to be.
If they are here because they are impoverished where they actually want to be, we should be improving the economies of where they actually want to be.
You can't spin this to where it is somehow better to deliberately ignore why they are coming. That question must be asked, and we must also justify any action or inaction we take in light of that answer.
why is irrelevant. america should be safe harbor for anyone, for any reason in any volume.
we are also not here to solve the *emigration problem of all other countries. thats just asinine.
why do you expect the united states to manage all other countries?? wtf
america is not and should not be the worlds police
When your neighbor is beating his wife and kids, you don't just invite them to stay with you. You do something about the abuser as well.
I reject your assertion that "why" is irrelevant. "why" is the single most important question that must be asked.
Human Rights aren't limited to those who manage to make it to our borders. For the same reason why we should be helping immigrants, we should also be helping those similarly situated. Those who want to leave, but are coerced into staying in abusive "relationships".
k
So close. What are the issues driving people North? What caused those issues? How are troops going to fight the “climate crisis?”