this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
174 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19241 readers
1746 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 127 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The funds for 20 miles of border wall were approved in 2019 before Biden took office. He urged Congress to reassign these funds for more intelligent and efficient enforcement purposes, but Republicans did not comply. Now, Biden has to fulfill his lawful obligations.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He waived environmental protections with executive powers to expedite the process. He isnt just passively letting this happen because his hands are tied.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Would those environmental protections have allowed the wall to simply not be built, or would they have just delayed it, costing even more money for environmental reviews, changed plans, etc., when a government shutdown is imminent?

That’s a real question, to be clear, and not one the article answered one way or the other.

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

Even if it were the case, as they said the budget is already allocated. Why not make them waste as much of it as possible paying for stuff that isn’t building the wall that everyone knows is useless? Making it look like even more of an expensive boondoggle seems like a better strategy than paving the way through federally protected lands.

And that’s setting aside the costs of maintaining what gets built or what it would cost to remove the wall at some point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He has to do it at the end of the year to comply with the order.

The end of the year is in 3 months.

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

Genuinely curious why he couldn't go ahead and fund the wall, allow existing environmental law to block it, take that back to congress and say this project is illegal and now it is up to congress to repurpose funds.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

He has to utilize executive fiat to circumvent normal environmental regulation procedures? What exactly do you think would happen if he didn’t?

[–] naught 39 points 1 year ago

Yep, let's not forget who controls the purse. You just know this is going to get spun 🙄

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And the GOP House 100% would have voted to start an impeachment trial if he didn't follow through on it. They would draw a false equivalence between the extortion scheme against Ukraine that lead to Trump's first impeachment trial, where one aspect of it was Trump unlawfully withholding congressionally mandated funds, and claim that this is the same thing. Actually, they'll say this is worse because they're completely shameless and untethered to reality.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

That's an excellent point. If he doesn't comply in good faith, it would 100% be in conservative media that he's sabotaging the borders, misappropriating funds, and haul him off to a real impeachment trial. It'd be the excuse for political theater that they want, and likely exactly why Congress wouldn't reallocate the funds to something else.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

They're so salty Trump got impeached (twice) that they're pretty much calling for impeachment for any little thing they don't like. It's actually humiliating and I don't understand how anyone can proudly say they vote for that party. It's like middle school logic.

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

He should spend it on a cute little picket fence with lots of pretty flowers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like a more creative person would have built an 10 foot long section of wall (or better yet a really fancy gate) valued at whatever amount of money congress had allocated.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That would be like USPS getting $30million to replace a fleet of delivery trucks and instead buying a handful of monster trucks that can't enter residential areas. No one's gonna look at that and go, "whoops! You got me! We said buy 120 USPS trucks with the approved budget but instead you bought 5 monster trucks and a sweet set of ramps and said you followed the 'spirit of the ask' because they're all trucks. Well, I see no reason to investigate this for misusing funds! As you were!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This sounds like it could be the premise of an episode of Veep

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It needs to pass an audit. The wall is stupid, but building a monument instead of a wall should fail audits and is a type of corruption worthy of impeachment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Presidents have to choose what they are going to stand for.

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

I hope they stand for the rule of law. Mind you they should tell us when the law is wrong and fight to get that fixed. However they don't get to ignore a bad law. There is often disagreement on what makes a good law, and sometimes you will lose that fight (or at least a battle in the fight).

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

I think bad enforcement of a bad law is a great way to fight it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Right, and it seems like Biden has chosen to stand for the rule of law and due process.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You immediately answered the one question I had, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He tried to put it off as long as he could by getting Congress to reappropriate the funds. They refuses. He was ordered to build the wall.

So he's using the funds to ensure the most dangerous parts are blocked to funnel the people into the designated channels so they can be processed humanely and securely.

What's the problem.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The problem is that I can't read so good and it's so easy to let social media influence my opinions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (6 children)

It's security theater, just like the TSA you see at the airport do nothing. The real protection is hidden both at the airport and at the border.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ain't nothing hidden at the airport. It's as secure as the bus

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

In general that's not true.

Reinforced cockpit doors.

Isolation of runways/terminals (yes incursions happen)

Habit tracing, and Id scanning upon entry. Gait analysis and license plate reading.

Air Marshalls (yes not on every flight)

Lots of shit that comes together to do a ton behind the scenes.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the upside because these things get built by the lowest bidder the wall probably represents a significant transfer of monies to the Mexican-American community, which is no bad thing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea of migrants making bank building a wall to keep migrants out is wonderful.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

As someone who lives in a border city, this is exactly what has happened and is still happening. Also, the wall wont work, the Republicans just wont admit it. just yesterday 300 migrants mass crossed through the canal in Tijuana 🫠

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He should had the money spent to redesign them as a welcome wall or something to help nesting birds and wild animals thrive. Instead of these shitty useless monstrosities.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

He is using the funds to make portable walls instead, which could be reused elsewhere I guess once their "purpose" has been fulfilled on the border. I'm not sure what the law requires of them, but they maybe will just be placed there and immediately moved.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Say what you will about whats legally required but if Biden didn't want to catch criticism from his fellow democratic lawmakers, he shouldn't have made a campaign promise saying he wouldn't build 'another foot' of border wall. Its not like he's unaware how these things work, he kind of brought this on his self.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

You can delve into the definition of "another" in that context. It could mean "no more than what is currently built" or it could mean " no more than what's already been determined/legally required will be built".

Though even with that, I will grant that using that wording could be considered deceptive. As much as people like to say "technically correct is the best correct", I would disagree when it comes to politics. It's Aes Sedai lying vs outright lying.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

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

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have you considered the fact that your simple solution likely is based on a simple reality that only exists in your head?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Executive orders actually are that simple. If it was done with one, it can be undone with one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I said it was a law, not an executive order.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›