182

Biden Administration Waives Laws to Rush Border Wall Construction Through Texas Wildlife Refuge (biologicaldiversity.org)

submitted 11 months ago by Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org to c/politics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] halfempty@kbin.social 89 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 63 points 11 months ago

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

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

That's their MO, punch left and cozy to the right

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

And gain nothing by either.

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

That's not true. Big Daddy business still gets to govern how they see fit, without fear of class consciousness ruining it all.

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean. That can't possibly be right.

Their voters will never hear about this.

I'm kinda surprised I heard about this.

[-] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

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

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

[-] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 7 points 11 months ago

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

[-] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

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

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

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

"useless, medieval wall " - from the site.

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

[-] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

[-] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 1 points 11 months ago

No. This is the relevant section in your link -

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

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

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

[-] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

[-] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

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

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

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

[-] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 2 points 11 months ago

Fair point

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] speff@disc.0x-ia.moe 1 points 11 months ago

Might've been because I was mean about it, lol. Bad habit of mine when I get annoyed.

[-] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Honestly. This place is way more toxic than Reddit.

I didn't interpret your comment as being mean.

[-] Emotional_repeat_554@lemmus.org 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] June@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months ago

Conservatives won’t even hear about this. Their media doesn’t report anything positive on him.

[-] HeyJoe@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

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...

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Bulldozing part of a wildlife refuge to build Trump's wall for him is not "positive".

[-] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

This is what happens when Democrats aren't pretending their hands are tied.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Booo! This sucks!

[-] lntl@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

how does one waive laws? this sounds illegal

[-] aspire2493@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago

It’s not legal for student loan cancellation. Perfectly fine for destroying the environment.

[-] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And that could ultimately make it perfectly fine to end up with the possibility of voting for another Democratic president who vows not to destroy the environment.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023

182 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18821 readers

5072 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.
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.
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

• 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