4 ms·
> Most Americans want legal immigration, but the Democrats took too long to do something and then Trump was able to kill the bill last minute. It looked like th
by creato 2y ago
> Most Americans want legal immigration, but the Democrats took too long to do something and then Trump was able to kill the bill last minute. It looked like the Democrats wanted to simply ignore it until they no longer could.
You forgot the part where they claimed their hands were tied, then finally did something about it 8 months before the election.
- matwood 2y agoYes, completely dropped the ball on an issue they could have addressed head on.
- llamaimperative 2y agoBiden introduced a bill for border security on the first day of his administration, GOP nuked it. Wasn’t ignored.
- 15155 2y agoAutomatically allowing a specific quantity of millions of illegal immigrants as a "compromise" isn't "border security."
- tzs 2y agoThe Senate passed a bipartisan bill earlier this year that had almost everything Republicans have asked for. The House wouldn't even consider it.
- 15155 2y agoDid you read it?
- llamaimperative 2y agohttps://youtu.be/oZw7xijmeGM?t=89 https://youtu.be/oZw7xijmeGM?t=89 Lindsay Graham did! "Everybody who comes on this floor and says our border is broken. We should do something about it. You're absolutely right. And unfortunately, we didn't get there. President Trump opposed the Senate bill."
- apinstein 2y agoIt’s fascinating how no one mentions that Trump didn’t pass comprehensive immigration legislation during his first term despite it being core to his platform. This issue is a mess and has been kicked down the road for literal decades at this point. Maybe finally it will get passed…
- llamaimperative 2y agoHe seems quite literally incapable of a “comprehensive” solution to anything. Every solution was the simple one that had the predictable unintended consequences. E.g. on immigration he prevented courts from deferring certain deportation cases, which meant high-risk immigrants stayed in the country for longer.
- mschuster91 2y ago> He seems quite literally incapable of a “comprehensive” solution to anything. Every solution was the simple one that had the predictable unintended consequences. That is because the result doesn't matter, not in "starve the beast" [1] cycle politics - it used to be mostly about money but the model can be used also for general politics. The playbook is: 1. side A rise to power claiming "issue X must be solved by doing Y" (all while knowing that doing Y is useless or counterproductive, but the voter base doesn't care - be it immigration or the defunding of healthcare or whatever) 2. The consequences hit delayed, when the term is at its end and the competitor B takes over (usually in US political cycles every 8 years, but these days it seems like the ping-pong is accelerating) 3. That leaves an opportunity for side A to constantly barge in from the side "look at issue X, vote for us next time and we'll fix it (for realsies this time!)" 4. Side A wins the next election. When it comes to anything budget related, replace the campaigning slogan with "look at issue X, it is clear that the government is incapable of doing anything about that issue, let us privatise it". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
- llamaimperative 2y agoThis is all true but I actually don’t think Trump knows his solutions won’t solve these problems. I think he’s actually a simple-minded man who’s saying the simple solutions he thinks will work because he hasn’t ever thought about the problem. I mean he came into power and proudly declared he had never heard of NATO before running (!!) but was brought up to speed in ~2min (!!). That’s who he is.