314
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago

I live in New York City, where as of the beginning of December 2023,

According to the city's Department of Social Services, more than 157,600 asylum seekers arrived in New York City since last spring [2022] in need of shelter and more 67,000 remain in the city's care, with hundreds more arriving every day.

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.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 10 months ago

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?

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.)

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -2 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"Fuck you, I got mine"

The conservative motto.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
314 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2875 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