cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/2042829

What are your thoughts on the article?

Excerpt from the first few paragraphs of the article (the rest is inside):

In 2019, I stood outside a for-profit child migrant jail in the city of Homestead, Florida. I was watching then-presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris speak out against the facility, initially opened under the Obama administration and reopened under former President Donald Trump. “It’s a human rights abuse being committed by the United States government,” Harris said at the time, flanked by fellow Democratic candidates Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand.

The parade of candidates making the obligatory campaign stop at this immigrant jail that caused so much outrage across the country included every Democratic presidential candidate competing in the 2020 cycle, excluding Joe Biden — who probably wanted to avoid uncomfortable questions regarding the facility’s origins while he was the sitting vice president. I was the political director of a statewide immigrant rights organization at the time, and part of my job was to help coordinate visits to this facility by different campaigns and to generate media coverage of the mistreatment of minors we knew was happening within its walls.

The facility was closed not too long after that, and it was celebrated by politicians and talking heads associated with the Democratic Party as a resounding victory against Trump-era anti-immigrant policies.

Five years later, Democratic politicians sound increasingly like Trump when debating immigration. After a military aid package to Ukraine faced Republican obstruction, the Biden administration decided to play four-dimensional chess and proposed combining it into so-called border security. Since Republicans have tied so much of their political identity to curtailing immigration into the country, this political play would be the sweetener that would dislodge military aid from legislative gridlock.

While lobbying Congress for passage of the bill, President Biden said it would give him the authority to “shut down the border on day one.” The proposal would have gutted the asylum system by creating a rushed and tougher process for asylum seekers, requiring them to adjudicate their claims within six months and meet higher requirements for approval. It sought to revive failed Trump-era policies like Title 42 and the construction of the border wall. If the border sees more than 8,500 entries per day, it would automatically be shut down under the bill, and the same would happen if there are 5,000 entries per day, on a rolling seven-day basis. It would have provided $3.2 billion to expand immigrant detention, including private prisons.

However, the deal collapsed after weeks of secret negotiations between the White House and a small group of senators that included Republican James Lankford, Democrat Chris Murphy and Independent Kyrsten Sinema. The proposal died before it could even get a vote in either chamber of Congress. Its failure preserved our asylum system and the international right to seek refuge, as the proposal would have enacted the most restrictive set of immigration policies in decades.


“four-dimensional chess”

Biden’s too old to play chess.

    • caveman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why don’t US change the laws which incentive having only 2 parties in power?

      In this duopoly obviously nothing good will ever come out of it.

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Hmm I wonder what two entities that do all the lawmaking might be disincentivized from changing the current system

        • caveman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yes,. unfortunately that’s the case.

          When US Constitution and laws was done, do you think they made rules which created a duopoly on purpose, or was it non intentional?

  • auth@lemmy.ml
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    taking sides is crazy at this time… they both act the same way despite their speech.

  • itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    The democrats want to keep tue government funded and to do so, agreed to pass a Republican bill for border control. As part of this bill they tried to address a few issues, albeit poorly. And the Republicans shot the bill down because daddy orange cheeto threw a hissy fit and didn’t want the President to get credit for implementing their shitty immigration bill before the election.

    Tell me how this is the Democrats fault?

    The real issue is that both parties are right of center and are generally pandering to their rich corporate donors. The difference is that Democrats occasionally try to do something good for the people, or at least make it appear that way.

    They are just terrible at optics and believe they are taking the high road by not throwing mud at their Republican opponents. The media is bought and paid for and used by their Republican overlord to promote shitty journalism and spread their propaganda.

    • Pluto [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It may depend on the Democrat, but even so, too many Democrats just want to one-up the Republicans by moving even further to the right.

      We have to create a movement toward dual power.