this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
124 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3845 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Course they are. It won't net them a single Republican vote, but they get to experience the sheer joy of throwing a vulnerable population under the bus.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I don't have the numbers, but to many Democrat voters lax immigration policy and generally better treatment of immigrants is the reason they vote democrat. The Dems are losing a good amount of public goodwill by doing this.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't want lax immigration policies. I want consistant immigration policies. I like the crack down on businesses taking advantage of illegal immigration and supporting legal methods.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean sure, but this was supposed to be one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans that the Dems just threw in the trash, along with the voters this difference got them.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think they threw it in the trash just because its not the only thing they do. Its a large and complex issue. Its like I understand even border security actions but walls are stupid and problematic and make no sense given modern times. Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

I mean the Biden administration signaled a massive shift from what they've been doing in the past, which is what I was referring to by lax policies, and Harris went further than that to get Republican voters' support.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

This shift is because we need the GOP to vote for anything that gets passed. They will not vote for a pathway to citizenship. They will not vote to protect DACA recipients. They will not vote to do the things that actually need to be done, that Democrats have proposed. So the only thing leftover is enforcement measures, some of which are still needed.

Doing nothing is acceptable to the GOP and they have the votes to make that happen. We need to get rid of them, that's the solution here.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody I know is asking for lax immigration policies. We want more judges to process the cases in a timely manner. We want migrants to be treated humanely during that process - given shelter, care, and not separated from their children. We want border control to have the resources necessary to deter unauthorized entry, and ensure authorized entry is available to those who need it.

These are not radical desires, it's about fixing the completely overwhelmed systems already in place. It should not take years to determine if someone was qualified to enter.

Or, we can go with trump's approach of denying everyone entry by default, detaining and separating their families, and sorting out the details never.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

No doubt it is for many. They're probably going to vote Democrat even if they find the candidate's stance on immigration unreasonably harsh because [insert long rant about plurality voting and the two-party system].

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)