politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to waive 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow for construction of roughly 20 miles of additional border wall, saying he had no choice but to use the Trump-era funding for the barrier to stop illegal migration from Mexico.
Still, the waiving of federal laws for the construction — something also done when Republican Donald Trump was president — raised questions, particularly because Biden condemned border wall spending when he was running for the White House.
Administration officials on Thursday announced they’d resume deporting migrants back to Venezuela, as part of their effort to to slow arrivals.
The decision was met with immediate criticism from immigrant advocates and Mexico President Andres Manuel López Obrador, who called it a “setback.”
The Department of Homeland Security posted the announcement of the latest wall action in the Federal Registry with few details about the construction in Starr County, Texas, part of a busy Border Patrol sector seeing “high illegal entry.” According to government data, about 245,000 illegal crossings have been recorded so far this budget year in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.
Homeland Security has also worked on roughly 13 miles in the Rio Grande Valley, and another small-scale project to fill “small gaps that remain open from prior construction activities” in the border wall.
The original article contains 809 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
While I do not support wall construction, I actually don't mind that he allowed the project to move forward. It shows respect for the office and for the voters of the previous administration. While he won't get much credit for it, being the only adult in a room is just a pretty tough gig, I personally respect it.
That said, I do not agree with waiving federal regulations to make it happen. It's not like this is some magic fix that is sure to work or something, its not worth cutting through red tape.
Trump signed into law in 2019. Allowing the White House to waive the environmental rules. Do I wish he would have tied up in red tape yes. But this money and the waiver were from the previous Administration. Biden has been in office for three years. Seems to me that makes him look less than enthusiastic about the wall.
Then he could have un-waived them, assuming it was done via executive order. Simply allowing the regulations to protect the things they are supposed to protect, like the environment.
Have you considered the fact that your simple solution likely is based on a simple reality that only exists in your head?
Executive orders actually are that simple. If it was done with one, it can be undone with one.
I said it was a law, not an executive order.
Do you happen to remember the laws name? My recollection is it was all executive orders.
I think it is the https://federalregister.gov/d/2023-22176 and update to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Executive Order was to bypass the The Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Endangered Species Acts
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/border-wall-environmental-laws-04-23-2019.php
The funds appropriated for it are not a simple waive away from the magic "executive" order. You aren't allowed to screw with congress approved stuff that easily.