Being a shill for the Israeli apartheid regime is the LEAST “maverick” thing you can possibly do in American politics.
To break with the left to join everyone else in enabling genocide isn’t a brave and principled stand. It’s ignorance at best, but more likely morally bankrupt cowardice.
Go home NBC, you’re drunk on neoliberal gaslighting. Again.
Morally bankrupt, fiscally wealthy
Yeah, that’s usually how it be in Congress 😮💨
Having a conversation about immigration isn’t a bad thing. Going in to that conversation looking to shove your view points down the others side throat IS a bad thing.
The reality is that we need immigrants to fill a ton of holes in our workforce but we also need to fix the system to allow legal immigration to be an easier process and to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
I don’t have the answers, but I know the problems exist and there are much smarter people who could help get ideas moving if the ideologues would get out of the way.
Yeah, most people against illegal immigration have no idea how arduous and expensive the process actually is. It’s not as simple as going to the border and saying, “One greencard please.”
I’m against illegal immigration, but the solution I’d like to see is a more streamlined process so people wouldn’t need to pay coyotes to smuggle them across with no guarantee they’d even survive the trip.
If they want to come be productive members of society, why stop them?
Because America, by large, has been built upon immigrants coming over and shutting the door behind them so others can’t get their success.
We’ve done it as English colonists, we’ve done it during the Industrial Revolution, we’ve done it in the early 1900s, and we’re doing it now. It’s sadly a trend that we, as a country, never grew out of.
One point I’ve brought up successfully with a Trumpy acquaintance has been how big Agri business relies so much on illegal workers (throw child labor in there too when they talk about pedos). I ask him why if politicians complain so much, why didn’t they really do anything to stop the demand for undocumented workers when they had the power? Then ask him if he likes cheap fruit and chicken, and how Tyson and Dole would have to double or triple the prices of it all if they paid a fair wage.
Unfortunately, He usually shuts up and says Hunter probably cashed in on it too or some other bullshit, but I can see some gears grinding over when it hits him at first.
It’s a ridiculous process to get a work visa even for skilled and educated people with money. I had a gf who had a PhD in material science with a wealthy family. She was working at a National Lab and was worried if she didn’t get a permanent position there, she’d be scrambling to find a job that would give her an extension or she’d have to move back to Europe.
deleted by creator
Apparently it used to be easier to get seasonal work permits for Mexicans wishing to work in the US, and it was common for workers to go back to Mexico after the work season. Most did not want to permanently move to the US, but preferred to return to stay with their families. Those visas were curtailed under Reagan, so they became much harder to obtain. Crossing back to Mexico became harder, so now more just cross the border and then never return. If we still had a reasonable system in place to allow temporary workers in, I’m sure we’d see less illegal crossings.
@phoneymouse @EatYouWell@lemmy.worl Grew up on a small family farm in San Joaquin Valley. Annually we hired the same “braceros” who migrated with the crops for harvest. Why did Reagan stop this?
Because Republicans hate anyone who isn’t a rich white man.
@EatYouWell I’m thinking it might have to do with Reagan’s deeply-seated animosity toward the UFW/Chavez business while he was governor?
Reagan is the reason the country is currently fucked, so probably.
We need immigrants because they make the nation better, not to “fix holes” in the workforce. They’re people. Let’s talk about them like they deserve humanity.
The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It’s not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they’re necessary. It seems like you’re just looking for offense.
I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m white and born in the US. I just happen to think immigration raises the tide for everyone. Usually when people talk about filling gaps in our economy, they don’t mean doctors and lawyers.
Seems like you got real defensive of someone else when I simply raised the point that as a nation of immigrants, the reason to continue allowing immigration is continuing that tradition and improving our country by welcoming everyone.
Immigration does benefit everyone. But the immigration usually discussed are asylum claims and “illegal” entries across the southern border, because ignorant people find it scary. Those folks typically aren’t doctors and lawyers, they’re typically poor with few options, and can be/are usually hugely beneficial for the US. People with resources, like doctors or lawyers typically can enter under different visa classifications.
Not defensive at all, simply pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with speaking realistically about immigration and economics. There’s plenty of dehumanizing language used with regard to immigration but I don’t think the commenter used or intended that.
Asylum seekers come from all walks of life. Look at the people fleeing Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They were welcomed to the US with open arms, even when they came here illegally. Look at past Central American migrant waves like in the 70s and 80s. Who do the US demonize? Poor central americans fleeing the same violence that rich ones were fleeing. Who received amnesty from Reagan in the 80s? The rich ones.
Violence sends everyone running for asylum, we simply choose which ones to call “illegal” and which ones to call model immigrants.
I don’t take anything anybody is here as a defense of a broken immigration system, or as offensive to people seeking asylum, a better life, escaping abusive home life, or whatever reason they decided to up and leave everything they’ve ever known. I’m just highlighting the other aspects of the topic, because even those of us that don’t intend to talk down about immigrants tend to use the language that’s been played out for the past 50 years or so.
Thank you.
I was speaking simply from a pragmatic, economic focus because the people opposed to immigration don’t care about the human side. Of course they’re people and we should care about them as people, but the conversation is helped along if you understand what people on the other side of the convo find important.
Japan is a key example of what happens when you reject immigration. Their work force is shrinking at a rate that will have significant negative impacts on their economy. Advanced society’s have fewer children, so immigration is needed to keep the work force growing. If all you care about is capitalism and economic growth, you should care about ensuring we allow immigration to continue, legally, at a high rate.
Man I’ve said this over and over again. If illegal immigration is such a problem take a damn look at your system. My dad just thinks I’m some crazy liberal though for suggesting it. I live in a border state and I’ve been hearing the same empty talking points since I was a child.
He says it’s “near and dear” to him which is definitely bullshit. What should be near and dear to him are actual issues to his constituents. Things like, wage gaps, infrastructure, opioid crisis, affordable homes and health care.
I’ll agree with him on one thing; he’s not progressive.
You’ve seen the contents of his office mailbox? Is it not possible that he is reacting to his constituents concerns?
Politician uses leftists to get elected, immediately backs off leftism once in office.
“Maverick” my ass. This isn’t a break from the left, it is a stomping down of the coalition that already had to fight tooth and nail against the Democratic Party pushing Conor Lamb.
A mAvEriCk SiDe
he’s not some sort of independent thinker charting his own way through the murky waters of american politics, he’s bought and paid for with a quarter million dollars of Israeli lobbyist money. I used to believe in Fetterman. I walked picket lines with him in Pittsburgh. I campaigned to help him and Tom Wolf into the governor’s mansion in PA. I see this as a betrayal and he’ll get neither a vote nor a kind word from me for the rest of his career.
Wait, so you agree with him so much on most issues that you campaigned for him, but disagree with him on a couple of difficult hot-button issues, and so you will never have another kind word for him? This kind of hyper-polarization from one extreme of support to complete vilification is what is wrong with American politics. Politics equals compromise, not going balls-out to completely crush anyone who is slightly further left or right of your position.
Yep, I’m a single issue voter when it comes to genocide.
Believe it or not, a person can be a supporter of Israel without being in favour of killing babies. Israel is an entire country full of different people and opinions. Just like the USA and every other country.
a person can be a supporter of Israel without being in favour of killing babies
maybe you can be, but he’s not. he’s got a quarter million dollars of AIPAC money in his pocket and he doesn’t give a fuck who the IDF kills or why, he’s gonna do everything he can to send them more of MY money.
Well, I assume you have met him so you know him better than I do. I would have to defer to your judgment if you really believe he is that kind of guy. I mean he would have to be a very evil person if he genuinely does not care how many people the IDF kills.
Do you think he has changed since you campaigned for him, or was he always a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Or is he just prioritizing the needs of his constituents and fellow members of the working class over those of foreigners? Or is he saying that he supports Israel overall in the big picture, and is willing to give Israel wide latitude for a short period of time to deal with Hamas, even if it means many civilian deaths?
What happened to you, Fetterman. You used to be cool.
ugh… and he was doing so well…
I’m not american, but isn’t calling yourself not progressive kinda… Shit? Why would you ever say that you don’t like progress?
He didn’t say that. He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.
Whoever wrote the article is trying to speak on behalf of an entire political group called “Progressives” by claiming everyone in the group came to a unanimous decision to not discuss immigration (this isn’t true).
So the writer of the article is claiming Fetterman isn’t a part of the group of Progressives because Fetterman is willing to do his job by being diplomatic.
The piece literally quotes Fetterman saying that he is not a progressive. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Then you didn’t read the article because he never said “I don’t like progress”
“I’m not a progressive,” Fetterman told NBC News. “I just think I’m a Democrat that is very committed to choice and other things. But with Israel, I’m going to be on the right side of that. And immigration is something near and dear to me, and I think we do have to effectively address it as well.”
What you think I’m saying: ‘he didn’t say “I’m not a progressive”’
What BruceTwarzan said: “Why would you ever say that you don’t like progress?”
I said: “he didn’t say that” (he didn’t say “I don’t like progress”)
He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.
“Let’s hear the literal fascists who compare even legal immigrants to vermin and invading armies out. I’m sure they’ll be willing to reach a reasonable compromise” 🙄
You can’t just throw a temper tantrum and expect to get your way. Diplomacy is required to actually get things done.
Who said anything about a temper tantrum? Could you please try and refrain from using ridiculous pro-capitulation strawmen?
Calmly refusing to negotiate with fascists about one of their favorite “if we give an inch, we’re traitors” issues because you know nothing good will come from it isn’t having a temper tantrum. It’s being realistic.
So you don’t think our politicians should ever be diplomatic or just when on the subject of immigration reform?
I don’t think politicians should grandstand for cheap points about good faith negotiations with domestic terrorists whose re-election depends on negotiating in bad faith or not negotiating at all.
I wouldn’t brag about negotiating with cats about them going vegan either, and that would have a BETTER chance of bearing fruit.
Let me know when you see Republicans try any. I haven’t seen it during my lifetime, but hey, there’s always this time 🙄
This isn’t a let’s hash out an immigration deal where both sides get a little of what they want regarding immigration reform, it’s submitting to hostage takers for an entirely unrelated issue that shouldn’t really be partisan.
Progressive is often used as a blanket term that basically means that you are farther left than the Democratic party. Not that he doesn’t like progress, just that he is not pursuing the end of capitalism or something in that direction if even slightly.
To be fair, Fetterman is eager to progress genocide.
Progressives are basically the left wing of the neoliberal consensus but not “left” if we’re talking like actual left ideologies ie socialism.
I always understood it otherwise, that progressive was more to the left, outside that neoliberal democrat stance. But these things change over time and I may have always just misunderstood.
Leftists generally call themselves leftists. Progressives are usually Social Democrats, ie Scandinavian Capitalism.
“Progressive” is a faction of Democrats. They aren’t the only people that support progress.
I don’t consider myself a progressive, because I disagree with about 30% (in very ballpark terms) of current progressive policy choices. It’s not hard to imagine Fetterman feels similarly.
I absolutely disagree with Fetterman that immigration should be curtailed at all - Democrats are not a monolith. Most Democrat representatives disagree with some policy or other.
“Progressive” is a faction of Democrats. They aren’t the only people that support progress.
Yeah, there are people to their left.
There are also people to their, uh, whichever direction the anti-authoritarian axis is.
Exactly I don’t consider myself a progressive either for similar reasons and I don’t agree with the notion of progress they seem to believe in. I’m a materialist and believe progress is contingent on economic and material conditions and that people’s notions of progress are relative to that. “Progress” begs the question progress to what and for them it’s often progress in a capitalist individualist sense, where more of the best people get the best stuff. Progress to them would be like more minorities represented in executive level careers but progress to me would mean the system that creates these disparities doesn’t exist. Progressives think capitalism can be redeemed by appealing to its own morality basically.
It is a label that is applied to a small group of democrats only, as far as I understand.
It’s all just labels, it’s not really the etemology of the word that people care about, but the ideas it represents. The opposite of progressive is conservative. I think if you were to ask anyone in particular, they would say that they’d like to progress some things and conserve others. It’s just the label for who tends to do more of each. So it’s less about saying your not “for progress” and more about showing what ideas you align with. And many conservatives wouldn’t call progressive ideas “progress” if they were implemented; they think it’d be bad for society. So it’s all just words at the end of the day to signify what ideas you align with
To be fair, even the blue states are feeling the resource and budget pinch with immigration and are aggressively calling for federal assistance. His views aren’t exactly out of line with his constituents on that issue.
Who are you referencing here? Illinois is the only one I remember, and their solution isn’t to close the border, it’s to speed up processing and stop a giant state from intentionally overstressing a smaller state. California is on the border and handling things just fine, but when suddenly all of Texas’s immigrants get redirected to a state that doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to handle them, it’s a problem.
New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, etc etc. Lots of stories from AP and Reuters in Google News if you start searching for teams like “migrants” and “federal.”
Massachusetts is another one that wants the federal government to fast track work authorizations and the like, and again, stop the targeted use of migrant busses to overload a small state’s infrastructure. For New York it seems like it’s mostly NYC and Adams is kind of a DINO.
There’s a lot of subtext smuggled into the original statement regarding blue state opinions on migration, and the concerns are entirely different from red state xenophobia.
Yeah I think even Dems are seeing polling shift on this issue. By choosing to do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of border crossings (which Kamala Harris seems to have done) the party is realizing they’re handing the GOP a huge political weapon that can (and will) be used against all of them, even if they’re far from the border.
edit: Lol at y’all downvoting legitimate sources. Sorry facts hurt your fee-fees.
Anyone who would vote to limit immigration is so anti-American that I cannot believe they are listened to at all.
I recognize the reality of it, but it’s just a bag full of insanity to me.
That doesn’t change the fact that polling has shifted on the issue. Whether or not the shift lasts or not, who can say, but people clearly are cooling to the idea In a way they haven’t since Obama was in office. By your metric, Fetterman might have irrational and un-American constituents, but they’re the folks who put him in office, unfortunately. I can’t fault him for trying to read the room and find a bipartisan compromise. Whether it comes with “limiting immigration” or not, an overhaul to our outdated immigration system has been overdue since the 1990s.
By your metric, Fetterman might have irrational and un-American constituents, but they’re the folks who put him in office, unfortunately.
I agree. I dislike them, not him. He’s doing his job.
I may disagree with his position, but I don’t dislike him as a person.
Anyone who would vote to limit immigration is so anti-American that I cannot believe they are listened to at all.
You’re dissatisfied with your party’s actions and wish they would listen to their left?
Do tell.
It’s the same with the kids in cages thing, like this is what America is, and what it must do to maintain its position in the world. You have to be anti-American to sincerely criticize it. The political system absorbs and mediates the outrage so the system can maintain itself. Biden committed more funds to the border wall and immigration policy still puts kids in cages, and it always will so long as America is what it is. Climate change and mass migration will require America to become more harsh, just like the European countries who let the migrant ships sink with families drowning in front of their eyes. Party politics can point the blame so nobody has to feel guilty.
Typical neoliberal scumbag. Buddy up to the left to get elected then as soon as you’re on the inside and have the power to actually chnge something, unleash your inner cliche villain and start loudly supporting the worst things you possibly can.
And I was beginning to wonder how dense the one who stated the following about Fetterman
When he said he was 100% for Israel and I saw he took AIPAC and other money from Israeli lobbies and said he was not a progressive my support ended. He lied to us. I hope to vote for a progressive opponent in his next primary.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Fetterman is just kind of an opportunistic liar. He’s not there yet, but he’s well on his way to becoming a Kristen Sinema-level charlatan.
Can you illustrate why you think this? I’ve heard almost nothing about his work since getting elected.
Our elected representatives need to be able to use their brains and their consciences and represent us over their political parties. Good for him standing up. If you aren’t aware -represent us is working on making it so this can happen more often.
Breaks with the Far Left, as most do. Progressives add nothing but complaints and no solutions.
This comment is laughably delusional. Single payer health care, ranked choice voting, ubi.
He means no solutions centrists and their republican best friends want.
More like the lack of means to pay for all their “ideas”. Tax the rich isn’t an actual idea.
M4A would cost less than our current system, and you see no need to handwring about its current wasteful cost while people go into medical bankruptcy and then die preventable deaths.
Increasing the minimum wage? Getting rid of “right to work” anti-union legislation? Encouraging co-ops? Antitrust laws with teeth? Police accountability? Not dragging our feet for decades on civil rights laws? Ending the war on drugs in favor of harm reduction? Yeah, wasteful as hell, all of them.
We need that money so we can fund fighter jets designed for three wars ago, and perpetuating the racist war on drugs, and funding kill-ology classes for police, and disregarding 26 environmental laws to build Trump’s wall for him, and shoveling no-strings-attached money to Netanyahu for genocide. Funding for those “ideas” needs no justification, ever.
But anything that might have direct tangible benefit for US Citizens without having to be filtered through corporations first? “How are we gonna pay for it” say centrists and Republicans alike, in perfect unison.
Removed by mod
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext
The Lancet says M4A would save 450 billion and 68,000 lives annually. But what do they know?
Since centrists never once thought about how to pay for their “idea” of maintaining a cruel status quo, it’s being paid for with bankruptcies and people’s lives.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
f parties didnt exist this would be a conservative, just like the sitting president.
this person here is really just a republican too afraid to call himself that, like a huge chunk of the ‘democratic’ party.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is breaking with progressives on hot-button issues with his fiery support for Israel and calls for Democrats to engage on tougher immigration laws, disappointing some on the left as he shows an independent streak.
Fetterman insisted he can be pro-immigration while also favoring policies to restrict the flow of migration to manageable levels, disagreeing with progressives who oppose new limits on asylum and bash some of the ideas in the negotiations as cruel.
The senator added that while it’s “not ideal to have this conversation” about asylum and parole policy in connection with an aid package for Israel and Ukraine, “it’s still one that we should have,” given that Republicans have made it an essential condition to advance the supplemental bill.
Fetterman’s fierce and unwavering support for Israel breaks sharply with demands by Sanders to withdraw U.S. military aid and has drawn searing criticism from the left as the Palestinian death toll soars amid the Israeli government’s bombing campaign in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.
“For a lot of Republicans, it’s been a pleasant surprise,” said Christopher Nicholas, a longtime GOP strategist based in Pennsylvania, referring to Fetterman’s stances on Israel, border policy and Menendez.
Fetterman chief of staff Adam Jentleson said the senator has “always had” the policy positions he’s espousing today, even though Republicans wanted to paint him as a socialist in 2022 and “some folks on the left are pretending” he has since changed his beliefs.
The original article contains 1,044 words, the summary contains 247 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
