this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
274 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4475 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
 

Frustrated by “rogue buses” from Texas dropping off migrants by the thousands, the mayors of New York, Chicago and Denver are trying to slow the surge by requiring the bus operators to coordinate arrivals under the threat of impound, fines and even jail time.

Last week, 14 busloads of migrants from Texas made their way to New York City – the highest total recorded since spring 2022, Mayor Eric Adams said, citing the city’s Asylum Seeker Arrival Center.

At the direction of Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Lone Star state has bused over 90,000 migrants to “sanctuary cities” run by Democrats like Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Los Angeles since April 2022, according to numbers released by the governor’s office Friday.

In justifying the busing of migrants who cross the southern border, Abbott in a statement last year said “it was just Texas and Arizona that bore the brunt of all the chaos and problems that come with it.”

“Now, the rest of America can understand exactly what is going on,” he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is such a cluster. The right is obviously doing this just to "own the libs", but really, what is the end game here? There are plenty of liberals that are seeking serious policies that address the border w/o the dumb posturing of the far right that are mostly about white supremacy. If the right was even remotely serious about immigration, they would be calling for imprisoning those that employ undocumented workers and if the right's concerns were only about economic anxiety, that would take care of most of this jibber jabber, though of course, there would still be the matter of asylum seekers.

How many on the right are doing this, though?

It's so hard to have a serious conversation about this. Of course, the very fringes of the left (and they are probably a very tiny, but overly vocal minority that make it easy for the far right to point at the most ridiculous examples and say we are all like this) don't help by painting everything as being a simplistic white=bad, POC=good. I would argue nearly everyone wants some control of our borders and who gets in and how they are vetted and most of this sentiment is not racially motivated. It's just a matter of degrees as to how much control, how many people and so on.

When it comes to asylum seekers, the right almost universally refuses to consider the holistic picture and America's hand in creating the outcomes of having asylum seekers in the first place...

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Border states have been ignored for decades. Once Spanish was a language you heard across America, people paid more attention.

Where should these 90k people live? That's an honest question. It is. Should they get housing when homeless Americans don't? Should they be given a bus voucher that can't be sold? What are border states supposed to do?

If a real border could be done while handling environmental and race concerns, I'm down for it. Climate change may make this all seem timid and we're acting like that's not a thing.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Should they get housing when homeless Americans don’t?

How about housing both groups? Last I checked, America had a lot of space.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Whose responsibility would that be? State, federal, city, county?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

How about all of them working together?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Once Spanish was a language you heard across America, people paid more attention.

This may surprise you but not all of us reject people based on skin color or ethnicity. Cities, especially, have always included people of many ethnicities and speaking many languages. You’d have to go very far back to find a tone when Spanish was uncommon in many Northern cities

Where should these 90k people live? ... Should they get housing when homeless Americans don’t?

Homeless people are homeless people, and 90k is not that large a number relative to the entire population