1. do you consider the border an issue that needs addressing?

2. what if anything do you think should be done?

3. do you consider border concerns a right wing talking point?


I ask because ive been reading liberal reactions to the DNC convention and beyond the "omg how can they keep funding the israeli genocide" talk i keep seeing criticism of Harris because she has pledged to make the border more secure. the NPC line seems to be that they consider any border concerns a right wing talking point which is a mistake for her to even address.

A graph which i personally find interesting. as you can see there was a MASSIVE peak of immigration in 2000, and bush era policy didn't quell the immigration much. During the Obama administration net immigration crashed, massive deportations and ICE bolstering contributed to a far more safe border.

then along comes Trump, he convinces people that the border is a top tier issue, despite rather low immigration numbers, and coopts the issue as a left-right policy. despite the fact that border security was bipartisan and the last 2 presidents worked fairly cooperatively to make it a safer border. trump continued these trends, then along comes Biden, where he won then made good on the promise to be anti-Trump, undoing policies predating Trump and causing perhaps the greatest year over year increase in immigration to the USA in history. a trend that would continue.

i find it odd that the left just let trump walk them into this corner, especially because i dont even think it was 4d chess, just a self own by democrats so wanting to be anti-MAGA that they took a huge own goal.



This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 23 2024 12:20pm

Vote Kamala and become Canada (Great slogan that rhyme). Wonder why Trudeau want her to win.

I'll say this to all Americans before y'all speedrun the USA collapse and become the new Rome; Look at Canada and see what after after 8+ years of open borders and mass immigration. The only thing that save you right now is a pop of 300ish millions. New migrants are now 5-10%+ of our society and they will be able to vote for their own soon enough which will literally kill everything our ancestors worked for. They literally took all our jerbbsbsbsbsb in every field and only hire their own and sell jobs for $ so these new migrants get their PR and become ''Canadian''. Same shit will happen to y'all. Kamala been saying there's no issue at the border for 4 years, you think she will stop mass immigration and close the border? Hah

This post was edited by iLoveMyUsername on Aug 23 2024 02:26pm

You have the timeline wrong. Democrats didn't only start adopting pro-migration positions in reaction to Trump.
Obama was tough on the border during his first term, helped by the financial crisis which saw a lot of Mexicans head home or stay home voluntarily. Immigration advocate groups lambasted him for it, gave him the moniker "deporter in chief" and really pressured him to pivot on the border. Which he and his party did, at least rhetorically. In no small part also because the exit polls from the 2012 election strengthened the belief of the DNC in the inevitability of their "emerging Democratic majority" based on demographic change.

By the time the 2016 campaign came around, Demcorats were ideologically dedicated to de facto open borders being a human right. They had already begun framing any and all immigration as categorically beneficial and enriching, and that only a bigoted racist or loser could see this differently. Hillary's campaign was hitting open border and pro-immigration talking points all the time. If she had kept her mouth shut on this issue where her views disagreed with those of the pivotal midwestern swing voters, chances are the she ekes out the win.

You also have to view the immigration debates of 2015-2016 against the backdrop of the European refugee crisis, which saw Merkel, all Eurocrats in Brussels and many other mainstream politicians across Europe embrace unlimited and un-selected third world immigration, cheered on by their fellow travellers in the MSM. I'm sure that most Americans had seen the pictures of seemingly endless treks of Muslims pouring into Europe (for example this one: https://i.imgur.com/Zhtq6CN.jpeg ). And also how the tacitly or explicitly pro-migration politicians in Europe had allowed it to happen and were showing no intentions of reversing course.

Their peers across the pond were very clearly headed into the exact same direction. It was rational for American voters to treat this is as high priority issue in spite of the still rather low numbers at the US border. This context is what allowed Trump to flatten his strongest primary opponent JEB! over the immigration issue and to then force Hillary to walk an impossible tightrope between the demands of the party activists, donors and journalists on one side and the preferences of the working-class voters in the pivotal states on the other.




Tldr: Trump's nativist rhetoric struck a nerve with the electorate because both the Republican establishment and the Democrats were increasingly embracing pro-immigration and open borders positions, not the other way round.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 23 2024 03:14pm

Yes

Very complex issue that I have no place in providing a solution for

100%

We tried to address it. They even had a bipartisan border bill ready to go.

Guess why it didn't pass? The republican cult leader aka trump, demanded it be shot down so it didn't make dems look good. Republicans bent the knee, kissed the ring, and shot it down... their own bipartisan bill.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-republicans-block-border-security-bill-campaign-border-chaos-rcna153607

That was easy.

This post was edited by Pyrotechx on Aug 24 2024 07:28pm

I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, but some initial reactions I have are:

1. Yes, the border is a legitimate issue that needs a multi-prong, year-to-decades-long plan for addressing, imo.

2. We seem to have border-related issues that stems from immigration from countries that are severely impacted by compromised safety and quality of life--namely from South America and Africa. I'm curious to know more about the historical US involvement in these regions and to what extent the modern realities are contextualized by historical transgressions, especially given the US' extensive history of meddling in and exploiting these regions. A wall / expanded ICE or deportations is a very reactive approach to addressing this issue, imo. I think it would behoove the US to be proactive and address what is driving the immigration to begin with, and as a know-nothing in regards to geopolitics, I do wonder if it would make sense for the US and Canada to support the development of Central and South America to establish a secure, strong relationship and to reduce the 'need' for people to immigrate to begin with. Especially given Russia and China's expansionist plans, and the detachment from the West seen on-going in regions in Africa where they are increasingly aligning with Russia.

3. I'm not sure what is meant by 'right-wing talking point'. I do think that the right is reductive in their approach, albeit understandably so given the concerns they have of an unsecured border, and more will be needed than simply building a wall and then only caring about what's on our side of the wall (I also think Trump's claim that the wall would be built but paid by Mexico was very bizarre; not sure how right-wing people thought that was going to happen).

I think the left leans on principles and ideals that there are not resources to actually support, and I think it pretty endemic within the left that this is the case. Open a dialogue in leftist spaces about ideals, principles, language, empathy, and social dynamics, and you'll have endless discourse. Open one about logistics, financial planning, legislative processes, and coalition building and suddenly it's crickets.



Basically, this.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 29 2024 10:45am

Just to comment on #2, the only way to solve the root cause issues in South America/Africa/other very poor struggling states is to conquer them in whole, such that judicial and martial control is absolute (de jure Imperialism). This is because the problem with these countries is the governance - absolute corruption, with the ones in power hoarding all the wealth for themselves. There is NO fixing this by sending them money, what you do is only empower the despots. This is what we've been doing for decades and it has only made the problem worse. The US meddling that you mention is basically previous American administrations trying to attempt soft imperialism which is doomed to fail, as the people who reside there simply lack the human development to conceive of enlightenment-era ideology & rule of law (it shocks me that people thought we could do this in Afghanistan of all places). What you write here is the correct long term solution (make those states prosperous and wealthy such that mutually beneficial trade is established and there is no incentive for migration) but this first requires conquest which left wing people tend to oppose nowadays (even though conquest was embraced by the leftist Soviets).

The Great Wall is the clearest and most effective short-term solution to protect the nation, which is much less expensive than an expedition of conquest for which the political will for that is not there (yet)

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 29 2024 11:09am

thanks for the long form reply, i appreciate the perspective.

2 things i'd like to respond to are both in #2.

1. i think, and most experts agree, that the surge in increased immigration are due to policies of catch and release. immigration was always coming in, but when word gets back to china, africa, and south america that people who get cought are given shelter, then a cell phone, and a bus ticket to their chosen destination, well that ramps things up.

2. investment in where they are from may in fact be a disaster. 2 reasons why, both because it goes to largely corrupt governments who are highly unlikely to use it correctly and it may lead to large scale ecological disaster where it is used correctly. economic involvement in brazil is the main reason the rain forest has been cut back and destroyed, to clear land for beef farmers. i dont think many of these regions can support a modern first world environment for their entire population without drastically destroying the rain forest and natural wonders. it is afterall how we created the america we know today. so instead we'd need to create a perpetual welfare state to save the rain forest, i may be swayed to support that if it cut down on net immigration, but it may be a losing battle.


overall the real problem is policies and enforcement at the border itself which has been disastrous. the border is so porous that many nations worldwide are taking advantage, the idea that 10,000 chinese nationals came into the USA and are still here last year is pretty absurd.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 29 2024 11:15am

Let me give the european POV.

1. Europe is so small compared to the USA, everyone is living close to a border.
Yes, it needs adressing

2. Close them asap

3. No, it shouldn't be just a right-wing point

/edit: this goes for both USA as EU borders

This post was edited by Joekel on Aug 29 2024 12:52pm

The bill that failed in the SENATE, where the DEMs have the majority. LOL

As usual the DEMS "claimed" to want tighter border security, but then added all kinds of other things (not related to border security), to the bill.
This seems to be the DEMs normal methods.

The DEMs might have had an argument if it passed the Senate and failed in the House. But that's not what happened.
These are the same DEMs that fought Trump's border wall, and even tried to tear it down.

The ONLY times the DEMs cared about border security, is when various States started bussing all the illegal immigrants to large cities in BLUE states.
THEN... they cared about the border.

On top of all that... they could have just crafted EOs, if they really cared about border security.

Typical DEM sleight of hand BS. :/