183
Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge
(biologicaldiversity.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
183 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4637 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Which is the most frustrating part of both his admin and the DNC in general. They keep thinking they can sway some of these folks to their side when that’s become an impossibility amongst those still in their camp
That's their MO, punch left and cozy to the right
And gain nothing by either.
That's not true. Big Daddy business still gets to govern how they see fit, without fear of class consciousness ruining it all.
This is a little why I worry about the ouster of McCarthy. I think the Dems should probably have voted to keep him.
Largely to screw the GQP, (while it’s not the game we deserve, it is the game the Republicans are playing). but also because they now could face a much worse chairman. It also would have probably ended McCarthy’s chances of reelection, or at least hastened it.
The fundamental problem is that nobody trusts Kevin, which would make it harder to support him.
If he had stuck to his deal with Joe Biden over the debt ceiling, he would have built back some of that trust. He might have gotten enough Dems to vote for him (or at least abstain) to have kept a majority. But nobody can make any deals with him at all, everyone is expecting him to not stick by them.
I mean. That can't possibly be right.
Their voters will never hear about this.
I'm kinda surprised I heard about this.
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.
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.
How does any of that negate what the center of biological diversity is saying?
....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.
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.
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
No. This is the relevant section in your link -
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
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.
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.
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.
This thread is not talking about that. This thread is talking about this action's effects on illegal immigration.
Fair point
Ah. So, same old, same old. D's being the only ones doing anything about illegal immigration.
Edit: can the people down voting the person I replied up please explain? I didn't read the whole document, but I read enough to agree with them.
Might've been because I was mean about it, lol. Bad habit of mine when I get annoyed.
Honestly. This place is way more toxic than Reddit.
I didn't interpret your comment as being mean.
Exactly right. There's always claims of some 5d chess about moves like this that aren't even discussed on most mainstream media that voters are exposed to.
Conservatives won’t even hear about this. Their media doesn’t report anything positive on him.
Right side will not even give this news the time of day since it is something positive. If they do post about it it will be talked about in a negative way or that democrats are desperate. Nothing is easy these days...
Bulldozing part of a wildlife refuge to build Trump's wall for him is not "positive".
Yeah, bulldozing part of a wildlife refuge is not only not "positive", but it mainly concerns me since it pains me to hear about 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 is, being I'm an environmental conservationist.
I'm not so sure, every time he's actively tried to buck right wing border policy it's gotten him dragged into the supreme court to be lectured about how not being dicks to latine folks for the shits and giggles is apparently unconstitutional somehow.