this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
180 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4557 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 89 points 11 months ago (26 children)

Biden is trying to score points with conservatives here, but it just won't work in today's ideologically divided political climate. Conservative views are not based on reason, and this action would assume that conservatives would be reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (14 children)

I mean. That can't possibly be right.

Their voters will never hear about this.

I'm kinda surprised I heard about this.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

Can't possibly be right because it's not - he pulled it out of his ass. If you look at sourced govt document, it outlines the motivation pretty clearly.

The United States Border Patrol’s (Border Patrol) Rio Grande Valley Sector is an area of “high illegal entry.” As of early August 2023, Border Patrol had encountered over 245,000 such entrants attempting to enter the United States between ports of entry in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Fiscal Year 2023.

It's a problem area that the government's trying to get patched up. If you read the document, they list very specific spots they're putting barriers up in - it's not some brain-dead wall. And it's not for conservative brownie points. If people are illegally coming past the border, the government has an interest in stopping that no matter who's actually in charge.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How does any of that negate what the center of biological diversity is saying?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

....what? I'm saying the claim that this is a performative gesture to score conservative votes is made up.

But since we're on the center of biological diversity, I'm going to question this site's information too.

Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge

Section 2 of the document linked in my post above has the location for the barriers/walls/roads/whatever you want to call it. I noticed that a few of them mention the refuge, but none of them mention going through them - only going up to the border... and that's it.

"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.

Explicitly not what this construction is. This site's motivation is questionable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Multiple news outlets are now reporting that it will, in fact, be going through the refuge based on available mapping.

The government's motivation is questionable.

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No. This is the relevant section in your link -

Environmental advocates say structures will run through public lands, habitats of endangered plants and animal species like the ocelot, a spotted wild cat.

“A plan to build a wall through will bulldoze an impermeable barrier straight through the heart of that habitat. It will stop wildlife migrations dead in their tracks. It will destroy a huge amount of wildlife refuge land. And it’s a horrific step backwards for the borderlands,” Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, said Wednesday afternoon.

This is no different than linking to your original source. AP isn't claiming it's going through the refuge. AP is stating that the environmentalists are saying it will. There's a difference

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And that there is the main concern I have regarding the border wall no matter what idea is trying to build it. The destruction of protected wildlife refuge and habitat with wild-lands and woodlands being clear-cut in the name of greed or something that doesn't make much sense is what pains me as an environmental conservationist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I'm not sure what your contention is... AP is not even supposed to claim anything. They verify information with sources they consider reliable. You can just claim anyone they reference is unreliable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

It doesn’t negate anything, but the press release isn’t actually saying much more than the headline. Waiving environmental protections; bad - border wall; bad.

Layers of understanding exist that didn’t make it into the PR. I appreciate the comment adding some context.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This thread is not talking about that. This thread is talking about this action's effects on illegal immigration.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)