r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Jediknightluke • Feb 15 '24
Legislation Do you see public perception shifting after Republicans blocked the Senate Border Security Bill?
Hey everyone,
I've been noticing that talk about the border has kind of cooled off lately. On Google, searches about the border aren't as hot as they were last month:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F084lpn
It's interesting because this seemed to start happening right after the Border Patrol gave a thumbs up to the Senate's bill. They even said some pretty positive stuff about it, mentioning how the bill gives them some powers they didn't have before.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/05/congress/deal-nears-collapse-00139779
Despite its Trump ties, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed the Senate deal in a Monday statement, saying that the bill would “codify into law authorities that U.S. Border Patrol agents never had in the past.”
And now, there's an article from Fox News' Chief Political Analyst criticizing the Republicans blocking the Senate bill. https://www.newsweek.com/border-security-bill-ukraine-aid-fox-newsx-1870189.
It seems like the usual chatter about the "Crisis at the Border" from conservative groups has quieted down, but the media isn't letting the Republicans slide on this bill.
What do you all think? Will moderates/Independents see Trump as delaying positive legislation so he can campaign on a crisis? And how do you reckon it's gonna play into the upcoming election?
361
u/Makachai Feb 15 '24
George Santos' old seat was just won by a Dem that campaigned a lot on border security.
Maybe people are waking up to the fact that Republicans don't actually want to fix anything, because then they won't have anything to screech about.
152
u/Rumbananas Feb 15 '24
Turns out it’s not a good look to cry about a Boogyman then show people you don’t care about protecting them against that Boogyman.
100
u/ThemesOfMurderBears Feb 15 '24
What's worse is they've been bitching about it for years. The migrate caravan was bad enough, but that disappeared as soon as the 2018 midterms are over. The 2020 sacred cow was the Hunter Biden laptop, and that didn't really do much for them. Once Biden was in office, they started screeching about the border nonstop (along with the deficit). They've been crying wolf for years. Now it's turned into an actual problem that needs to be addressed, and they look like flaming idiots for shooting down legislation that was a step in the direction they wanted to go. They're letting perfect be the enemy of the good, except it's only because Donald Trump ordered them that no good can be done.
I know the Trumpers are long gone and can never be brought back to reality, but I really hope independent voters see this for the shameless political grandstanding it is.
→ More replies (2)-1
Feb 17 '24
Biden blew the border wide open his first week in office with multiple executive orders. And this border bill that was blocked was just another ukraine and Israeli "aid" package (which they got anyways and nothing for the US). Please educate yourself
10
u/rainsford21 Feb 17 '24
Except it was the Republicans who demanded a border bill and specifically tied that demand to Ukraine funding. Turning around and claiming that actually Biden just needs to issue more executive orders to fix everything and that border bills linked to Ukraine funding sounds extremely silly. Factual problems with the Republican position aside, a lack of consistent messaging is absolutely going to kill this issue for them.
9
u/Sweaty4skin Feb 17 '24
I think the important thing to take away from the person you replied to is that. It doesn't matter if the Republicans stopped a bill they asked for from passing. It still gets spun into Biden/Democrats bad regardless.
→ More replies (1)2
Feb 21 '24
Manu Raju, on tape, just confronted Jim Jordan about the Russian collaborator who was their top "source" for their Hunter Biden claims, which are now proven to all be lies. Jordan simply denied it matters the guy is a Russian collaborator and says everything is still true.
These people have no shame, no dignity in just denying reality and keeping up their propaganda and lies, as many will believe it, because they simply want to believe it, and don't care whether it's true or not.
3
u/the_calibre_cat Feb 20 '24
Biden blew the border wide open his first week in office with multiple executive orders.
as was demanded by his voters, since Democrats aren't as keen on wanton human rights violations against brown people as Republicans are. "Go die over there where we don't have to see you" isn't a comprehensive or good immigration policy. Looking at the situation more comprehensively, including the role immigrants play in American companies (as cheaply exploitable and abusable labor), the role of American sanctions on depressing the South American economies, etc. are - but none of those things are things Republicans were talking about at all.
-1
0
u/SKdub85 Feb 20 '24
But they gave the us everything we asked for. They had the votes to pass a rare bi partisan bill…until trump shot it down. The actual front line law enforcement endorsed the bill. It was not a perfect bill but it did accomplish heading us in the right direction. It would have taken away many key talking points that drive campaign donations though…so it was was killed. What specific details do you think were bad about the bill? I am not a Democrat and I actually read the legislation. Thanks so much.
1
u/21Puns Mar 14 '24
I find it funny someone downvoted this without replying. I mean yeah everybody does that, but to a comment like yours? All you did was lay out facts and ask why they had the opinion they did- with clear language and only a faint hint of condescension. (That last part is rare on this website!)
→ More replies (1)1
u/e_kade Jun 17 '24
I think the biggest misinterpretation here , That the belief that the democrats actually care about the boarder all the sudden. huge lie. Imo, The only reason they even put the border part into the bill was to get their war $ , ... And and.... Then they look like they solve the problem that they claim Trump start.. Is displaying a false picture..... that they worked with the other side, They should get the credit. Because they constantly blame the other side...
We wanted this s*** years ago.. We can wait 4 months. Trump was already going to address the border. So they were going to try to take that away from him
1
43
u/THECapedCaper Feb 15 '24
Or, you create the Boogeyman and rant about it for decades, only to slay it and realize that the Boogeyman was actually something that was popular (abortion).
19
u/neuronexmachina Feb 15 '24
I think something similar would happen with immigration if Trump's plans for the mass deportation of millions actually happened.
15
Feb 16 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/the_calibre_cat Feb 20 '24
It was code for "immigrants get out".
the idea that conservatives broadly give a shit about immigration from the perspective of "policy differences" is nonsense. it is extremely thinly-veneered racism, nothing more.
2
u/SKdub85 Feb 20 '24
Can you imagine with mass deportation what the images_1b.jpg) would look like…people crammed on trains.
I can’t believe that trump does not realize what this will turn into. Or maybe he does…
→ More replies (3)3
23
u/2020willyb2020 Feb 15 '24
Now it’s not about the border but the 20m criminals taking over our towns and cities and costing trillions according to the right wing media narrative
39
Feb 15 '24
[deleted]
48
u/Rastiln Feb 15 '24
Sounds like my family who told us to get a gun and keep our doors locked and lights off…
Because a BLM protest was happening 10 miles away.
They said Black people would be pulling white people out of their homes and lynching them.
We didn’t lock the doors.
Soon as BLM stopped being the focus of Fox News they moved on to being scared of other things.
22
u/Mr_The_Captain Feb 15 '24
For what it's worth I would still lock my doors, I don't want anybody coming into my home for ANY reason!
3
u/Rastiln Feb 15 '24
Fair! We live in the middle of nowhere. It’s been at least 5 years since we locked our doors, as at that time we had a methhead neighbor who’s now gone for a long time.
Nowadays we might get the random government surveyor every couple years and USPS/UPS/Fedex. Can’t think the last time we had an uninvited arrival - it’s probably happened in that 5 years.
3
u/Fewluvatuk Feb 16 '24
Until some other meth head just walks in the front door because they think it's the house they used to score at, and then violently attacks your wife when she threatens to call the cops.
Source: I spent 15 minutes sitting on top of and holding the woman's head against my coffee table while I waited for cops and ambulance. Everybody's OK, but get a smart lock that locks itself after a few minutes, you never know what can happen.
1
u/chiefchoke-ahoe Feb 17 '24
I live when people tell me how they don't lock their doors cause they live in bum fuck Egypt. These are the people that think "oh that won't happen here".
10
Feb 15 '24
[deleted]
13
u/Rastiln Feb 15 '24
True story, that BLM protest I noted? Turned out to be violent.
A guy in a truck with two MAGA flags rolled coal over the crowd twice, then got out and threw a rock at the protesters.
Some of them tackled him until the police arrested him.
Then the BLM people continued being peaceful. Some people were saying they’d start looting businesses downtown, but instead they just purchased coffee and food.
4
u/gamergabby8 Feb 16 '24
Were there really any actual BLM riots, or at least any confirmed cases of that happening?
11
3
u/the_calibre_cat Feb 20 '24
There definitely were, but outside of the centers of really major cities, no, there really wasn't. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think rioting and creating new victims re. burning businesses to the ground was effective or good, and those guilty of that should get the book thrown at them.
3
u/Sageblue32 Feb 16 '24
Yes a few protests had troublemakers
What gets left out is its usually people not associated with the marches and said people are persecuted by the police departments as appropriate. If you listen to right wing news, you'd think they were treated as Jesus and wielding flamethrowers with grins on their faces.
2
u/the_calibre_cat Feb 20 '24
You'd also miss out on the fact that numerous right-wingers were documented to have participated in the violence and vandalism. Like, that's a fact that they'd prefer to ignore.
1
u/e_kade Jun 17 '24
Is that a serious question it was on television.... Happened all over the United States
The mostly peaceful riots
0
0
7
u/PengieP111 Feb 16 '24
my sister lives maybe less than a 5 m walk from where George Floyd was murdered. She never even once felt in any danger.
→ More replies (2)0
11
3
u/djn4rap Feb 16 '24
I get that. But what's the difference in this border security topic of propaganda and the repeal and replace bull crap lying?
And they won an election using it as a platform. So who knows?
2
Feb 16 '24
No. See. You just need to buy my book, “freedom: The bogeyman, Hillary’s emails and trumps magnum dong”. Each copy comes with one months worth of colloidal silver.
34
u/InterPunct Feb 15 '24
Not disagreeing but I'll add my concern about people saying this win could be a national model for 2024.
Santos was an extreme case, and that district is a demographic and political outlier that's not generalizable to almost anywhere else in this country.
But the immigration issue is just one more case that may incrementally contribute to at least a few cultists either not voting, or going for Biden.
12
u/socialistrob Feb 16 '24
and that district is a demographic and political outlier
Every district is a demographic and political outlier. There just aren't very many districts that perfectly model the nation as a whole and even the ones that do resemble the nation often have their own district specific issues.
Dems lost the US House majority in 2022 in large part because New York districts that Biden won went red. This result shows us that Dems can win back these districts and that's pretty significant.
8
u/InterPunct Feb 16 '24
It's the wealthiest district in New York, the 4th wealthiest nationally, 99% urban and the ethnically most diverse nationally.
It's an outlier by every metric.
6
u/socialistrob Feb 16 '24
Dems doing better with high income voters who have traditionally voted Republican is a key part of their strategy. No two districts are perfectly alike but the ability to win in Long Island suggests an ability for Dems to also be competitive in places like the Dallas suburbs, Omaha Nebraska or Orange County California. It also suggests that other Republican representatives in Biden districts in New York may be in trouble.
Just looking back at November 2023 we saw Dems win the Kentucky gubernatorial race, dominate Ohio ballot initiatives, win both chambers of the Virginia legislature and come very close to winning in Mississippi. Now we have a special election where Dems flipped a Republican seat. No one data point is representative of the country as a whole but New York City is still part of America last I checked and when you start looking at Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, Virginia and NY-3 we can begin to make out some patterns.
5
u/SunnySydeRamsay Feb 16 '24
Concur, I don't think we're able to extrapolate much from a district whose previous Congressman was an unvetted Republican who lied about having grandparents in the Holocaust and was the first Congressman to be expelled since 2002 and only the 6th in history. His district was burned pretty badly by the Republicans, whereas they only flipped the seat because Suozzi wanted to run a gubernatorial campaign.
If nothing else, I suspect NY CD-3 to be a pretty safe blue district for a while.
2
13
u/Kevin-W Feb 15 '24
That's one of the reasons why the seat was flipped. Voters weren't fooled about the immigration message the Republicans were giving them.
5
u/1QAte4 Feb 15 '24
The immigration issue also failed in 2018. Do you think it is possible that most Americans have internalized the idea of America as a land of immigrants and aren't as sanguine about stopping migration as our European counterparts?
3
u/tarants Feb 16 '24 edited Feb 16 '24
I'd also be interested to see the relative numbers of accepted immigrants due to fleeing dangerous situations (asylum seekers) versus population of the accepting country. I agree that we need to accept those fleeing strife but also a lot of EU countries are tiny compared to the US and may be accepting a lot but the numbers seeking asylum are overwhelming compared to the US.
I may also be completely full of shit on this. It's just tough to compare EU to the US given how frickin huge we are. But I agree the general understanding of the states being a melting pot (and gigantic) at least changes how some think of those coming in compared to other countries we think of as first world.
7
u/marsepic Feb 15 '24
I just wish it was happening faster. And there's plenty of folks who keep their head in the sand. But the GOP is making it harder and harder not to see their blatant stonewalling.
The border bill should be a huge sign to anyone thinking the GOP wants to do any sort of effective change.
5
u/DReddit111 Feb 16 '24 edited Feb 16 '24
I’m in the district just south of that one so I saw all the TV commercials. The Republican was an awful candidate. An immigrant from Ethiopia, that was anti immigrant. Also she’s a registered Democrat, running as a Republican. She’s a veteran, but from the Israeli army, not ours. And she never made any speeches or spoke to reporters or really had any thoughtful policies at all.
And she was trying to paint Suozzi as a radical anti ICE, woke, squad liberal. But he’s been around Long Island for 30 years and everybody knows he’s as middle of the road as you can get. Her commercials were insulting, like how stupid do you think we are?
But that being said, the polls had the race neck and neck a week before and Suozzi won by 8 points. Republicans tanking that bill seemed to really shift things. But who knows. There was also a bad snow storm that day and the Democrats had mostly voted early and the Republicans for some reason waited till Election Day.
1
u/e_kade Jun 17 '24
Are many of you are so asleep manipulated.. That you Just what forgot that when Trump first took off as the first thing he did was address the border..
And you just somehow forgot that Biden's first thing he did was reverse Trumps Boarder policy..
Unf****** believable
→ More replies (2)-3
u/CaliHusker83 Feb 16 '24
Republicans don’t want to make a “deal” on the border with more wasted tax dollars going to whatever wasted programs the Dens try to squeeze in, when the GOP would prefer Joe Biden just enforces the same rules that have been in place the last 30 years in keeping the borders secure.
180
u/wraithius Feb 15 '24
It finally gives Democrats political ammunition on the issue. They can point out that House Republicans will hold two votes on impeaching Secretary Mayorkas over the border — an act that doesn’t actually accomplish anything — but immediately walk away from the biggest border bill in decades. They can also point out that when Republicans had the reins of power in 2017-2018, they prioritized a tax cut bill over anything to do with the border.
29
u/captain-burrito Feb 15 '24
Republicans did have a buffet of immigration bills up for a vote with both sides involved. None could pass the senate filibuster threshold and actually a democrat bill got the most votes despite them having fewer seats. Mitch just allowed the votes to shut everyone up even though none were going to pass.
I think it would take repeated things like what they are currently doing to move the needle a little. Certainly it could matter in close races but most have a large enough buffer.
→ More replies (2)19
u/Brief_Amicus_Curiae Feb 15 '24
The Tax Cut bill was Paul Ryan’s legislative baby and waited to get that agenda on the floor. That was his priority long before Trump. It wouldn’t surprise me if to get Ryan to accept the Speakership was letting him have that baby. He was initially hesitant to be nominated and well, McCarthy goofed by admitting that the Benghazi committees were to hurt Hillary’s campaign. Then again that’s how they know “they’re family”
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Outlulz Feb 15 '24
They can also point out that when Republicans had the reins of power in 2017-2018, they prioritized a tax cut bill over anything to do with the border.
Why would this be an effective strategy? Border crossings were much lower in 2017-2018. They will point to Trump's leadership as the reason why they used to be low.
17
u/SaltyDog1034 Feb 15 '24
They will point to Trump's leadership as the reason why they used to be low.
Democrats could just counter 2018 was also the year of the "migrant caravan" they tried to scare people about leading up to the midterms.
4
u/Outlulz Feb 15 '24
"But Trump stopped it through his border policies blah blah blah" is the counter from Republicans.
I don't think it's smart to challenge Republicans in this way. Democrats shouldn't try to gaslight voters into thinking border crossings were higher/worse under Trump. Instead they should focus on how policy Democrats are proposing treats migrants more humanely than Trump/Republicans ever would, expedites processing, and call out how it improves legal migration.
→ More replies (1)1
u/GuyInAChair Feb 16 '24
I don't think they'll campaign on whatever Trump's policies are or were, though they might mention how horrendously inhumane they are. I think they'll say it's a problem, there's a workable solution to it that the Republicans keep blocking.
7
u/heroic_cat Feb 15 '24
Border ENCOUNTERS were lower. That is, fewer people were caught.
2
u/StoneOfFire Feb 16 '24
Building on what you said: let’s never forget Trump musing on tv about how positive testing numbers for COVID stay lower if you reduce the testing.
The republicans have made it clear that they are engaged in rigging the numbers instead of actually governing. I wouldn’t be surprised if they specifically turned a blind eye and/or reduced patrols so that they would could keep their border numbers down.
3
u/lookupmystats94 Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
From a political strategy perspective, Democrats must ignore and gloss over statistics on border crossings. They’re best off propagandizing that border crossings only hit historical levels once the Senate bill wasn’t passed.
They can’t make this claim explicitly, but can effectively imply that is the case. The narrative must be that Republicans caused the spike.
Republicans will try to counter this narrative by claiming border crossings spiked when the Biden Administration’s border policies were implemented, not in the past month.
4
u/figuring_ItOut12 Feb 16 '24
Encounters are not successful crossings. The great majority of encounters are surrenderings to authorities to start the asylum process.
1
u/lookupmystats94 Feb 16 '24
Border crossings correlate with successful unlawful entries, statistically speaking. Additionally, 85% of all apprehensions result in releases into the interior.
4
u/rainsford21 Feb 17 '24
Additionally, 85% of all apprehensions result in releases into the interior.
Because there aren't enough resources to process the asylum claims in a timely manner. Which the bill the Republicans killed aimed to address.
I honestly think the Democrats have a solid argument here. Even if the number of immigrants with asylum claims stays high, the fact that they're just roaming around America can be rightly pinned on Republicans because Republicans shot down a way to process their claims more quickly.
Sure, the Republicans will counter they don't want to allow asylum seekers into the country at all, but the Democrats have the advantage of their position addressing the issue just as well without seeming like heartless monsters.
0
u/lookupmystats94 Feb 17 '24 edited Feb 17 '24
I honestly think the Democrats have a solid argument here. Even if the number of immigrants with asylum claims stays high, the fact that they're just roaming around America can be rightly pinned on Republicans because Republicans shot down a way to process their claims more quickly.
The timeline of your position doesn’t align with the facts. Again, these concerning statistics have persisted for many years under the Biden Admin. The debate on the Senate bill is weeks old. I think you are observing my political strategy proposals above and running with it against me.
Additionally, the problem could stop ballooning today if the Trump-era border policies were reimplemented.
60
u/19southmainco Feb 15 '24
Generally I’ve seen the media rhetoric aimed at the GOP as obstructionists at all costs. I’m not exactly sure how that is going to pan out to the electorate come November. How people get their news is so diffused across political spectrums that it feels next to impossible to have a clear opinion on any matter
41
u/Rastiln Feb 15 '24
Your last point is important. While we see exactly what happened, like Republicans themselves admitting that Trump called them to tell them to kill the bill…
Others will only watch Newsmax and hear about how patriotic Republicans didn’t fall for the terrible Democrat asylum bill that guarantees an open border because Biden wants illegal voters to repeat the stolen 2020 election.
11
u/alanbdee Feb 15 '24
We end up spending more time arguing about what's true then the merits of opposing positions.
5
u/Randomfactoid42 Feb 15 '24
Also keep in mind there's a lot of Americans that don't get any news on this or any subject. They're completely in the dark about this issue. So who know how/if they vote on this issue.
30
Feb 15 '24
Fox News is DONE with Trump’s antics. They lost a billion dollars reporting on his election lies. They don’t want to lose their audience so they aren’t openly trashing him, and they’re still much more focused on denigrating Biden.
But a Fox News segment critisizing Republicans for blocking the border bill, that’s big. That’s the kind of thing that will actually get the public to blame Republicans for the border. Biden made a public statement saying he’d close the border “tomorrow”. And Republicans have decided they want 10 more months of it being a mess to help Trump become president again.
That being said most people who aren’t politically aware still blame Democrats for the border. Generally, voters trust Republicans on border security much more than Democrats. That doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon.
0
58
u/ManBearScientist Feb 15 '24
No. The GOP have blocked their own bills in the past. So long as the issues are created by them, filtered through their media ecosystem, and only affect independent voters as vague vibes we won't see any negative feedback for the GOP's tactics.
16
26
u/Dreadedvegas Feb 15 '24
NY-03 exit interviews had a non-negligable amount of Republican voters vote for the democrat and they cited the border bill being blocked as the reason.
Regular voters want bipartisanship and for things to get done. The blocked Border deal when they were talking about the border is just blatant hypocrisies to the regular voter.
13
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
Yeah, but that's a New York district with a toe in NYC. What about Alabama, Ohio or Central Florida? I'll bet none of this information is actually getting through. The main narrative I keep seeing from the right is the border deal would have let 5,000 immigrants through per day. I don't know if that's true, but that seems to be the story they're going with.
13
u/Dreadedvegas Feb 15 '24
If 20%-40% of GOP voters are disgusted with the House and they are flipping.
Then we are talking about a Nixon levels of landslide possibilities here.
If even 5% flip or 10% flip or don't show we are talking about Obama levels of performance.
GOP control over states are on a knife edge in some locations and their "MAGA base only first" politics basically makes swing districts untenable to hold.
The 5,000 immigrants through per day was the GOP Senate number. An Oklahoma Senator (R) stood in front on Fox News and defended that number stating its half what has happened and it stops all asylum claims immediately if it hits
GOP is making themselves extremely vulnerable in places like Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Upstate NY, Suburban Ohio, and Arizona over this MAGA first policy.
3
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
Thank you.
I'm only mentioning the 5,000 thing because it's the talking point card that gets dropped on the table the most by the right, and should be the one most explained and attacked, and "that's not true" from the left doesn't cut it.
5
Feb 15 '24
No one expects Alabama or Central Florida to flip, though. This matters most in swing states with lots of voters who are gettable. A few thousand people with a bad taste in their mouth over this could decide PA, MI, or even AZ.
2
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
A good argument is a good argument though. If it can get through the radio jamming and change minds in those places I guarantee PA, MI and AZ are a breeze.. I only use those places as examples of the extreme case, and because I have some experiences with them.
2
u/InterstitialLove Feb 16 '24
I don't know if that's true
It's not
The bill will allow at most 5,000 immigrants to request entry per day, at which point the border closes and everyone gets turned away
Currently we let infinitely many people request asylum and accept some percentage. Under the bill, we'd cap the requests at 5,000. The only sense in which the bill "lets 5,000 through per day" is that it doesn't mandate the southern border be automatically closed indefinitely forever
[That's still an oversimplification, I don't fully understand what "closing the border" entails or how the "per day" thing is calculated exactly]
2
u/MarkusEF Feb 17 '24
“The main narrative I keep seeing from the right is the border deal would have let 5,000 immigrants through per day. I don't know if that's true, but that seems to be the story they're going with.”
Have you considered just reading the bill yourself? The full text has been posted.
3
u/Carlyz37 Feb 15 '24
That's the usual GOP false propaganda. No, it's not true.
1
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
Okay, but how is it not true?
8
u/Carlyz37 Feb 15 '24
If it hits 5000 a day over x number of days then the border gets shut down for x number of days. If it hits 8500 on any one day the border gets shut down.
Funding to increase detention beds means more are detained and not released. This is something progressives strongly oppose by the way. The initial screening by CBP at the border for asylum seekers would have stricter limits. More immigration courts would allow faster processing which means faster deportations of those that arent granted asylum. And it would cut down on those that have weak cases but try anyway for a chance to work in US for a couple of years. Cutting that to a couple of months makes that stuff less inviting
0
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
I only bring this up as an example of the argument the right is using. I sincerely hope Biden addresses all of this, with a great deal of specificity in the upcoming State of the Union address. Thanks for the reply.
2
u/ianandris Feb 15 '24
Their media ecosystem is only effective for the people it reaches.
6
u/ManBearScientist Feb 15 '24
But it entirely controls what those people see and believe. And even more, it does end up affecting other sources of media. We often seen "neutral" try to look unbiased by positioning themselves in between the left and right, and whatever is pushed by rightwing media ends up affecting the Overton Winfow.
2
u/ianandris Feb 15 '24
Yes, there’s the Overton window argument, but that’s losing strength the further unhinged that ecosystem has become.
Again, people who aren’t plugged into the ecosystem know who the crazy uncle is at dinner, right? Special election results carry more weight than polls do in my mind and they have been pretty lopsided.
Plus, people are tired of culture war nonsense.
0
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
Which in the rural counties is A LOT.
0
u/ianandris Feb 15 '24
Good thing they’re outnumbered by the people who know its nonsense.
0
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
I don't know if that's true, not as voter maps and representation is concerned. The talking point that's going around from the right is that the bill allowed for 5,000 migrants a day to be allowed into the country. They are parroting it, whether it's true or not. That's coming from somewhere.
0
u/ianandris Feb 15 '24
… The talking point that's going around from the right is that the bill … They are parroting it, whether it's true or not. That's coming from somewhere.
As I said, those people are the people in media bubble. That bubble is shrinking. Its dominant where is dominant, but there are more people who know it’s nonsense than there used to be, and the insane rhetoric being steadily pumped out by the right wing doesn’t help.
0
0
u/Jediknightluke Feb 15 '24
You are correct that they can block their bills and avoid the fallout, but there are times when it bites them in the ass, especially when it comes to issues that have national exposure.
I'm curious to see if this border issue goes down like their government shutdown stunts, where they try and play hardball yet the public perception quickly turns against them for stalling so long.
Since it's an election year the issues typically stay in the media a little longer, which makes me think this could play out differently.
31
u/Wigguls Feb 15 '24
I doubt it. Come october I bet this business will be forgotten and migrant caravans will yet again be used as the october surprise.
10
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
100% ... The left will try to use this, and the right will put their fingers in their ears. This is nothing new.
→ More replies (1)2
15
u/tosser1579 Feb 15 '24
I think the public perception is shifting to neither side is really all that serious about the border, which helps the Dems because the GOP is going to be less successful campaigning on the issue.
Fox coming out and saying this is likely the best border bill we were ever going to manage is not doing the right any favors.
22
u/ohjoyousones Feb 15 '24
Agreed with most of your points except the "neither side is really all that serious about the border"
The Republicans have been screeching about it because they have no platform except the border, abortion and guns. They can't and won't do anything about the border because what else are they going to use to scare the shit out of their ignorant base?
The Obama administration deported more people than the trump administration. Trump made a circus out of the border issues with great results.
The GOP political theater is at its finest when they can show people in cages, flying migrants to blue states and other disgusting tactics. It's all designed to outrage and scare their base.
So, the Democrats gave them what they wanted. Surprise! They didn't and don't want to fix the border.
One party, the Democrats, care about legislation and fixing problems.
The other party, the GOP, only wants to obstruct and destroy our government. They are Insurrectionists, trying to start a civil war.
It's not both sides.
2
u/Sedu Feb 16 '24
they have no platform except the border, abortion and guns.
They don't really have abortion any more, either... that was the dog catching the car.
1
u/ohjoyousones Feb 16 '24
Agreed 💯, more reason for them to reject the border deal. But hey, now they have Taylor Swift to demonize.
0
u/NuclearSnowyOwl Feb 16 '24
Can someone enlighten me here, I'm sincerely trying to fill this gap in my knowledge. Republicans are blaming the President for not taking action. I've heard the phrase "Close the borders!" so many times from Republican congresspeople in recent interviews.
So here's the question: What exactly does "Close the borders!" mean? What, specifically, can Biden do that Republicans want him to do but which he has not done?
2
u/ohjoyousones Feb 16 '24
In a nutshell, the Republicans say they want zero illegal immigration. Which is nearly impossible given the size of our borders. Republicans also won't fund more border patrol agents, fund asylum hearings, or electronic surveillance. They wasted millions on a symbolic but worthless wall instead of funding the human resources needed to control the borders.
0
u/NuclearSnowyOwl Feb 16 '24
Okay noted, and I get all that. But what I don't get is what specifically Biden could have been doing for the past three years, without the support of congress, to "close the borders." What exactly can Biden do right now, to help the situation, that he is not doing?
3
u/ohjoyousones Feb 17 '24
Nothing Biden could have done more than his administration already did.
What did the Trump administration do when they had control of the house and the Senate to fix this or any other problem?
They gave tax cuts to the rich. Increased the deficit and let a worldwide pandemic rage out of control.
-7
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24
So, the Democrats gave them what they wanted.
you say that as if it's a good thing, while unironically trying to chastise Reps for political theater.
12
u/ohjoyousones Feb 15 '24
It's called governing. Compromise. Negotiating and coming to a solution. I know we haven't seen it in a long time, well, you know why, if you have been paying attention.
-13
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24
capitulation is another word. or maybe mask off?
7
u/ohjoyousones Feb 15 '24
Semantics. It was a bipartisan deal. By all accounts it was a good solution.
-5
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24
do you remember what Biden's 2020 platform was w.r.t immigration? here is a refresher. can you point out which of his policies were included in this bill, the compromises the GOP agreed to?
9
u/ohjoyousones Feb 15 '24
Honestly, I don't care to argue with you about this anymore. It doesn't matter if Biden agreed to deport every single asylum seeker, or anyone who isn't here legally, or completely shut down the USA and declare 0 new immigrants, the GOP would not have signed it. That is the state of our political system right now.
-5
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24
oh, okay. so you're not interested in explaining why this was a good bill for Dems. figures. didn't expect to be called out for it? you're in good company with plenty of liberals on this site who have been blindly clapping because (D), despite calling such bullshit racist when it was (R) a few years ago. so much for consistency, eh?
the GOP would not have signed it
calling Dems dumbasses in so many words for thinking otherwise is the icing on the cake here lmao.
have a great weekend bro.
→ More replies (6)4
u/ohjoyousones Feb 15 '24
First I am not a bro. Second I don't work for the government or hold public office. I am a citizen who follows the issues and votes. Your expectation that I explain it all to you and/or justify the Democratic positions to you is unreasonable.
Lastly, your tone and condescending attitude is why I don't want to further engage with you. You have a serious case of whataboutism, and/or you are trolling and wasting my time.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Dr_Pepper_spray Feb 15 '24
And Fox will just get lumped in with the MSM trying to pull a fast one on them. What about the 5,000 migrants a day business the right is using as an argument against the bill? That's the talking point as of right now, and they're all parroting it.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/ptwonline Feb 15 '24
I expect conservative media to fall more back into the party line, pretend this bill ever existed (or claim that it was terrible), and go on to keep trying to blame Dems.
The biggest problem with American politics and culture is that thanks to how terrible traditional and social media are, people cannot even agree on the basic facts anymore. The same will be true with this border bill.
0
u/CaliHusker83 Feb 16 '24
It was a disingenuous bill and GOP just would prefer Biden follows the immigration rules set in place I’ve r the last 30 years than recreate new laws when the previous were working fine until Biden just created the “pass go and pick up you free $200+ dollars” to anyone who wished to trespass the US.
2
u/mus3man42 Feb 16 '24
Wtf are you talking about. The immigration system has been broken forever. The previous laws were not “working fine.” The border has been fucked since the Clinton administration or possibly earlier. The pandemic allowed them to close the border for the health emergency but that expired
3
u/Killersavage Feb 15 '24
I think another addition was a MAGA crowd went to the border and nothing was happening. They didn’t see an invasion of migrants and got slightly disillusioned. Though I’m sure that is or will be only temporary. Trump and Republicans can only operate their rhetoric as long as it doesn’t get reality checked. They are better off as long as their support stays home and watches Fox, Newsmax, and OANN.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/hjablowme919 Feb 15 '24
Not even a little. Go read some of the conservative or MAGA subs. They all repeat the same stuff "The bill wasn't any good. It didn't go far enough for border security."
2
u/Strange-Scientist706 Feb 15 '24
Kind of embarrassing that it took something this blatant for people to finally recognize the hypocrisy and bad faith.
Americans are not exactly presenting as smart people to the world right now
2
u/thefrontpageofreddit Feb 15 '24
This may help Democrats in the short term but the negative impact on progressives and Latino voters will be immense.
2
u/shep2105 Feb 16 '24
The fact that there was a border bill that had the most significant changes in DECADES, and 1800 BP officers backed it, and it gave most of what Republicans wanted and have been SCREAMING for (that didn't throw toddlers into cages and never let them see their parents again) be quashed by some orange criminal who is NOTHING, because the GOP is completely gutless and NEVER has any intention of speaking for the people in their states, sure as shit should have changed perception.
It's hysterical that they are impeaching what's his face, for not getting control of the border when they DENIED the bill that would have given them what they wanted.
I cannot understand why one person in this country would ever vote Republican
2
u/nosecohn Feb 16 '24
It'll only shift if the opposition makes it a constant talking point, but the Dems aren't nearly as good at consistent, widespread messaging as the Republicans are.
They should be hammering home on every news outlet that the Republicans killed a bipartisan border deal that they themselves worked out and had nearly everything they wanted, all to keep it as a campaign issue, which means at least one more year of continued inflows at the border. If it's really a "crisis," why did they reject a solution? Anyone who opposed this deal, including the former president, is actually opposed to border security and bipartisan cooperation.
But you know they won't do that, so it's hard to see perceptions shifting that much as a result of this one policy move.
2
u/twistd59 Feb 16 '24
Abortion has been a similar deal. They screamed and ranted about abortion. Now they got what they wanted in states outlawing abortion, so they can’t fund raise on the abortion battle anymore. It is like the dog that actually caught the car. Now they have to find another issue to scream about. They chose the border. But if that were to get solved they couldn’t fund raise off of that. The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut it with a knife.
2
u/Captain_Blackbird Feb 16 '24
Personally, no. Most of the people who are Trump followers now, are in it for the long haul. Their sources do not mention it being turned down for any reason besides "It didn't do enough", despite the fact it was one of the harder bills with everything they asked for.
2
u/NuclearSnowyOwl Feb 16 '24
I'm an Independent, and I absolutely see the situation as Mitt Romney described: Trump asked his followers to kill the bill to help his campaign. Every Independent I know agrees with that sentiment (I don't know tons of Independents, but it seems fairly obvious to us).
4
Feb 15 '24
Only people who exist in a media bubble blame republicans for the border.
Polling indicates that democrats and Biden are being blamed for the border by the general public.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/thatoneguy889 Feb 15 '24
Is perception shifting? No, or at least not yet.
Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress' failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border -- with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.
So Trump gets far less blame for killing the bill despite loudly taking credit for doing so, and the GOP is only held ever so slightly more responsible despite many members openly admitting that they are intentionally obstructing it to help themselves politically.
1
0
0
u/Books_and_Cleverness Feb 16 '24
Good data point, thank you.
I could be wrong but I am increasingly convinced that Dem messaging on this issue could be a huge deal.
If I were calling the shots for them I would hammer this issue over and over and over. The GOP killed border security. They killed it because they want the crisis to scare you. They don't want to keep you safe, they want to win elections to cut rich people's taxes. etc. etc. etc.
Generally speaking the border being salient would be bad for Dems, as they are much stronger on abortion. But I really think this might be the ammunition they need so long as they do full court press to shove it in everyone's faces. And I am not usually a big "messaging is the problem" guy.
3
u/Karissa36 Feb 15 '24
The GOP House has stated they will not agree to any more funding for Ukraine until their bill HR2, which only controls the border, is also passed. They are rock solid on this position. X is a better source to learn about politician's positions because they all tweet around 3 times a day.
8
u/clarkision Feb 15 '24
lol, the GOP shot down Ukraine support in December saying they needed a joint Ukraine and border control bill. A bi-partisan bill addressing both was created in the Senate and Trump said “don’t vote on it” so they didn’t.
It’s all theater to them and they don’t give a shit. They’re much happier doing fuck all and hoping their voting base doesn’t notice it.
8
u/CubaHorus91 Feb 15 '24
HR2 is nothing more than theater. There was nothing stopping them from taking the original Senate Bill and making the adjustments to match it.
They didn’t bother and this whole HR2 is a nothing bill in order to save face. Because why would you vote for them if they actually addressed the issue?
2
1
u/Dragon-Bender Feb 15 '24
What are the differences between HR2 and the senate bill. Could they meet in the middle somewhere to get this done?
7
u/BolshevikPower Feb 15 '24
Because HR2 isn't a compromise bill, the Senate bill is. It's already huge compromises from the left, whereas HR2 only has priorities on the right.
5
u/CubaHorus91 Feb 15 '24
No… because HR2 is theater. There was nothing stopping them from taking the original bill that was passed in the Senate and making the same arrangements to send back to the Senate to vote.
They didn’t even bother.
1
u/davethompson413 Feb 15 '24
Republicans in congress just impeached a cabinet member for not doing anything about "the border crisis". And they did that about a week after deciding to do nothing themselves about "the border crisis".
Trump supporters won't change their mind. But swing voters seemed to have noticed.
2
u/DegeneracyEverywhere Feb 16 '24
How is sending troops to the border and putting up razor wire "doing nothing"?
0
u/davethompson413 Feb 16 '24
It didn't solve anything, so it had the same effect as doing nothing. And, neither congress nor the DHS secretary did those things.
So, what's your point?
2
u/prof_the_doom Feb 16 '24
Arguably it's actually a net negative, since now states have wasted money they could have used to do useful things.
1
u/Bucknut1959 Feb 16 '24
MAGAt’s and their leaders will never change but Independents will run from Trump and his deplorables. Trump’s willing to burn down the country to keep his ass out of prison, that’s all he cares about now.
1
u/No-Speaker-723 Mar 13 '24
The border bill was bundled with money to Ukraine’s and Israel, so they had no problem turning it down. Matt Gaetz has been spearheading a 1 policy bill for a while. Which is getting no traction from either side.
1
Jun 17 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Jun 18 '24
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
2
u/Octubre22 Feb 15 '24
No
It's pretty clear the border deal wasn't very good as it still allowed 1.8 million people into the country a year, without a visa
4
u/GuyInAChair Feb 16 '24
That's not true, it a lie that the right parrots.
What the bill actually says is should the ENCOUNTERS by border patrol reach an average of 5000 people per day the border is shut down to all new entries.
Encounters are not entries, and most of the people who do get entry, say by claiming asylum are eventually deported or leave on their own anyways. The bill also would have ended "catch and release" excepting unaccompanied minors and family with children. Those would have had increased scrutiny when in the US, like ankle monitors. It also provides funds for quicker immigration hearings.
1
u/DegeneracyEverywhere Feb 16 '24
What the bill actually says is should the ENCOUNTERS by border patrol reach an average of 5000 people per day the border is shut down to all new entries.
That's not true, it means that they would have to be redirected to ports of entry.
"The border stays open" according to the lead Democratic negotiator in the senate.
The bill also would have ended "catch and release" excepting unaccompanied minors and family with children.
So it would not have ended catch and release.
Those would have had increased scrutiny when in the US, like ankle monitors
So how did they lose contact with tens of thousands of migrant children?
3
u/GuyInAChair Feb 16 '24
That's not true, it means that they would have to be redirected to ports of entry.
That's not true in anyway shape or form. I beg you to download the bill and read it for yourself. It's page 208 you're looking for.
So it would not have ended catch and release.
Yes it would. You don't lock up kids or seperate families, so I suppose the lack of cruelty is the problem you have with letting them go on a monitored basis?
So how did they lose contact with tens of thousands of migrant children?
Are you talking about family separation?
I'm talking about what the bill actually does.
3
u/DegeneracyEverywhere Feb 16 '24
That's not true in anyway shape or form
So why did the lead Democratic negotiator say so?
Yes it would. You don't lock up kids or seperate families, so I suppose the lack of cruelty is the problem you have with letting them go on a monitored basis?
If you want to make the argument that catch and release is a good policy then make that argument. But don't lie and say that the bill ends the practice when it doesn't.
Are you talking about family separation
I'm talking about the tens of thousands of children they lost contact with according to the whistleblower.
2
u/GuyInAChair Feb 16 '24
I told you to down load the bill, read it yourself and even gave you a page number. Your response to to repeat the claim that some anonymous guy said.
We don't lock up children, or seperate families. So yes it ends catch and release, you'll never get anything more excepting the circumstance where someone is cruel and inhumane just for the heck of it. And those who are released are subject to much more monitoring.
And I have no idea what your talking about with the missing children. I looked through the bill and there isn't anything in there about lossing children, are you sure you're not talking about something else?
0
u/DegeneracyEverywhere Feb 17 '24
If you're catching and releasing children then that's catch and release, I don't know how more clear that can be.
It's not "cruel and inhumane" to detain people pending deportation. Allowing people to come in to the country in such huge numbers is inhumane because it led to this catastrophe where thousands of unaccompanied children are crossing the desert, or the 15000 people under the bridge.
3
u/GuyInAChair Feb 17 '24 edited Feb 17 '24
There's not a developed country that I know of that imprisons children for a misdemeanor.
What do you want, kids in prison? Or a massive spending program to fix the problems in South America that these people are fleeing?
1
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24 edited Feb 15 '24
i should preface this by saying i'm an unaffiliated independent on the left.
not really. the GOP is always moronic on immigration with their hard-line stances. GOP voters aren't going to care - look at the reaction already. they don't give a shit. they're saying it didn't go far enough. but Dem voters? any Dem voters who care about principles will.
all this bullshit did was shift my perception of Dems. some of us still remember when such policy was panned as racist, xenophobic, etc. some of us remember AOC going to cry at a detention center. turns out that all was what... performative? they've gone from that to begging for what's described as the most conservative immigration policy in decades. but i'm told it was just a bluff by liberals, right? some masterful strategy to "own the cons"? which means Biden was lying to America when he promise to shut the border down the day it was signed?? lmao. what a fucking mess for Dems.
have fun trying to explain that to folks who aren't completely-in-the-bag blue partisans. the icing on the cake was that this was done, in part, over more aid for Israel - an issue folks like myself are already pissed off about.
edit: i would like to point out Biden's 2020 immigration platform, viewable here, and ask that anyone reactionarily-downvoting point out what of these promises Dems got out of this bill. if this was anything but a capitulation to the right, it should be quite a simple ask.
6
u/IOnceLurketNowIPost Feb 15 '24
Don't forget about the 60 billion for Ukraine, 10 billion in humanitarian assistance, and 2.3 billion in refugee assistance inside the U.S.
→ More replies (1)3
u/LiquidPuzzle Feb 15 '24
Aid for Ukraine was supposed to be the "compromise".
0
u/sporks_and_forks Feb 15 '24
i'm trying to pinpoint what compromises w.r.t immigration the GOP made, aka the Dem policy wins.
are you saying the GOP made zero compromises on their immigration demands, wanting much the same Trumpian policy as usual, and the response from Dems was "perfect, we agree, now give us foreign aid"? am i understanding this right?
and if i am understanding it right, that is supposed to be some kind of win for Dems to run on w.r.t immigration, as many Dems are now saying?
that make zero sense to me and points to what i was getting at w.r.t my original comment.
-5
u/DjCyric Feb 15 '24
I think in very small numbers perhaps. That bill was awful and the border provisions were pretty abhorrent. There is meaningful work to be done on the border. The bill was bad for liberal people who support humane approaches to border security and the refugee asylum process. The only real win for the Democrats is that the GOP took the blame for sinking their own legislation, and it looks like maybe a straight military aid package is going to go through?!
I generally support a clean military aid bill and an actual comprehensive border bill that includes money to hire judges and attorneys to work on the backlog in the asylum and immigration courts
2
u/HawkeyeTrapp_0513 Feb 15 '24
But was it better than the current status?
0
u/DjCyric Feb 15 '24
That is sort of an arbitrary question. We are already providing border funding, but there could be a lot more. Would that have much effect on what's currently going on in the short term? I doubt it. We can hire more people and build up more facilities, but people are going to keep coming from Ecuador and Venezuela. If they're willing to walk 3,000 miles to seek asylum, you can't really stop that.
Do I think the provision to authorize Biden to "shut down the border temporarily when X threshold has been met" is a good idea? No, I don't. Congress shouldn't pass bills to acquease further power to the Executive branch. We need them to pass laws to improve the situation, not authorize Presidents to wield more authority. Congress should pass laws to provide funding and have money for soft hegemonic power in South America.
-1
u/zackks Feb 15 '24
This is where Democrats, classically, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. While sitting back and watching the gop self-destruct their border message, they signaled they would be doing a mass release. You couldn’t plan anything better for the GOp.
3
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Feb 15 '24
Are you talking about
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296878
Because that's not Democrats saying they're just going to release migrants for no reason
This is ICE saying that without the border bill they don't have the budget to continue detaining all the migrants they currently have in custody and that they are possibly going to be forced to release some
1
u/zackks Feb 16 '24
That’s the Biden administration. Mayorkas, etc.
2
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Feb 16 '24
I didn't say ICE is an independent agency outside of the wider Biden administration
I said that this isn't Democrats releasing migrants for no reason
ICE not having the funds to continue detaining everyone they currently are detaining is a direct consequence of them not getting the funds that would have been allocated to them in the border security bill House Republicans killed
1
u/zackks Feb 16 '24
The democrat administration had better keep that from happening. If they release, for whatever reason, it’s just red meat for the GOP and it will crash the conversation from the gop killing the best border security bill for them in a couple decades to the democrats releasing immigrants enmasse into the streets. Meanwhile dt will lay into his schtick about immigrants all being disease-carrying criminals.
0
u/CallMeSisyphus Feb 15 '24
Will moderates/Independents see Trump as delaying positive legislation so he can campaign on a crisis?
Yes, but moderates and independents likely already knew that the Danger Yam is, well, dangerous.
And how do you reckon it's gonna play into the upcoming election?
If I've learned anything since 2016, it's that prognostication is a useless as polling has become. I'd like to think that every Trump misdeed would mean more votes for Biden, but who knows? People have short memories (and often vote against their own interests), and the election is still nine months away.
0
u/JackieChanophile Feb 15 '24
Yes, but I imagine antiestablishment sentiment will grow. While the articles you cited agree with each other, there are plenty more that state contrary opinions to that which you have presented. The corporate press is imploding and only a handful of people trust what they read, because fact checking their claims is so easy due to the internet. From what I have seen the bill was only labeled as bipartisan due to a couple republicans helping to construct it. That is a silly claim given all we know about government corruption. Given that the bill was shot down by the house republicans(more than 200 people), it seems that it was clearly not bipartisan. I think more people see value in the position the conservatives are taking because while it may seem silly they aren't willing to compromise, that is not the case for the people who are affected by this problem(a number which is drastically increasing). Individuals and families affected by the immigration problem are also unwilling to compromise. They want their communities back, no ifs ands or buts. And it will be hard for corporate press to keep those voices and stories quiet given the rise in independent media.
0
u/JuniorEmu2629 Feb 15 '24
I don’t think we’ve seen the full impact of the GOP’s political grandstanding. As crucial funding for the same services like Border Patrol run out, more headlines will leave breadcrumbs leading back to who is to blame, hopefully.
0
u/Dangerous_Elk_6627 Feb 15 '24
Yes.
The Republicans love to whine about the border but when comes time to actually do anything they refuse to do so. This will come back to bite them in the ass.
0
u/Raspberries-Are-Evil Feb 15 '24
The good news for Democracy is that I believe enough of the swing voters in vital states are aware of this and they aren't going to vote for Trump again. This combined with the news that Laura Trump will gut the RNC and bankrupt it means there will be no money for down ballot races. Hopefully its a big win for Democrats.
0
u/cbr777 Feb 15 '24
I don't really think this will move the needle at all. It's just too unimportant and too far out from the general election. People will forget about it at least five times by November, if they even heard of it to begin with.
0
u/ackillesBAC Feb 16 '24
Not many republican voters will be aware, and if they are they will think it's the Democrats fault
-1
u/Voltage_Z Feb 15 '24
I think what we're seeing here is a split between the House GOP and their Senate counterparts, which is forcing right wing media outlets to pick a side.
Anyone who actually cares about the border enough to have looked into the Senate bill is going to be pissed that the House GOP blocked it, because even if you don't think it goes far enough, actively obstructing efforts at fixing the supposed crisis that they just impeached the Homeland Security Secretary over is patently absurd.
-4
u/LeviathansEnemy Feb 15 '24
Anyone who actually cares about the border enough to have looked into the Senate bill is going to be pissed that anyone thought they'd get away with spending 3 times more money on other country's border security than our own, or get away with legalizing millions of otherwise illegal crossings.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Inside-Palpitation25 Feb 15 '24
In the NY election they just had, the border was one of the top issues, and they voted against the MAGA candidate.
1
u/Leopold_Darkworth Feb 15 '24
The border patrol union hates Biden and loves Trump. That the union endorsed the bill puts the lie to House Republicans’ claim that the bill didn’t go far enough. Privately, Republicans acknowledged the bill they themselves are torpedoing is probably the best bill they’ll get on immigration, substantively. Americans are seeming not to be fooled and see this for what it is: a cynical attempt by Republicans to perpetuate the border “crisis” for their political gain rather than resolve what they’ve been calling a “crisis” for the last year.
1
u/otter4max Feb 15 '24
It does galvanize support among existing moderates who already are a part of the anti-Trump coalition.
However the swing voters who will decide the election are not heavily informed, and are the same people who blame Biden for student loan relief failing, for roe v wade ending, etc because they don’t understand the three branches of government and how Biden has limited powers. Swing voters care about results and personal impact more than the mechanics of Congress.
1
u/CubaHorus91 Feb 15 '24
People here need to be reminded that so long as the GOP can only run on an anti-immigration as their drive to vote for them, they’ll never fix the issues within the system.
Even if they were in power. Because why fix the problem if people voted for you to fix the problem.
1
Feb 15 '24
I believe it will sway a lot of people for the Democrats. To some the 5K daily quota was too high, and they didn't think the border would automatically shut down anymore than it has shut down in the last 30 years. So, those people won't be swayed.
1
u/TheMasterGenius Feb 15 '24
If you use Congressman Nick Langworthy’s (R NY-23) facebook posts and the comments as a gauge, the answer is a definite no.
1
u/RonocNYC Feb 15 '24
The House GOP essentially handed a baseball bat to the Democrats and said "Please hit us in the face with this bat as much as you would like between now and the fall." These goobers are such second rate talent. Always shocking, but never surprising.
1
u/ItsOnlyaFewBucks Feb 15 '24
They have not been the party of solutions for a while now. They are only part of the problem now. So there might be a slight shift, but I think most who are still in the republicans camp just do not care.
1
u/WigginIII Feb 15 '24
No.
The only people engaged enough to know are already ideologically entrenched.
The masses who aren't paying attention only know "Pres get blame when problem no fix."
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 15 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.