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.
I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
Sure but anyone who votes based on their hatred for immigrants will always go Republican simply because they are more openly fascistic on this issue.
How about the crack down on the domestic terrorists
Best we can do is laundering the far-right narrative that there is a crisis at the border and advocating for the far-right border bill that Republicans want.
When democrats go to the right on issues, they don’t attract republican voters. What happens instead is that republicans go even farther right in order to differentiate themselves from democrats.
Left, Left…
.
Blue dogs:
Yeah but the other party are fascists so I’m still gonna vote for them
Why are you even using that word if it’s not attached to actions like this
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone’s opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication’s capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
