zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
It's interesting that many are debating the value of this 'rule', when this action is blatant abuse of his powers to silence his critics. He has now a lengthy and growing history of this type of behavior, so it was 100% foreseeable. He could just come out and say that its his twitter and he can do what he wants, but no, because he also wants to be seen as a 'defender of free speech'. He acts like a-hole, but then expects unquestioning adoration.

>>Eddy_V+Xv1
It's a comfort to me that the Constitution forbids him from running for president.

>>klyrs+Ax1
That is a mutable document.

>>halisk+1G1
You think that the anti-immigration party would galvanize around that issue?

>>klyrs+OJ1
The US has no pro-immigration party.

Both parties are anti-immigration in practice. The only difference is in their posturing to their respective bases around election time.

Consider that the last major amnesty was under Reagan and the last major tightening of immigration rules was the IIRAIRA under Clinton. The modern deportation machine was really spun up by Obama - he removed more people from the US than any other president, almost 1% of the entire US population was deported by Obama. 50% more than Dubya and more than Trump. [1]

It's been two years under full-on Democratic party rule, the remain-in-Mexico policy is being walked back but still in effect. [2] Children are still being separated from their parents at the border. [3] [edit] The public charge rule still exists, but was returned to the classical definition. [4] Indian-born folks are still in 50+ year queues to get green cards subject to deportation at the whims of their employers. Consulates abroad still have year-long backlogs for appointments to get visa foils so people here, legally, in the US, cannot leave the US as they wouldn't be able to get back in without a new foil. I have friends who haven't left the US in years to see their families.

More of the US-Mexico border wall was built under Obama/Biden than it was under Trump, and Obama was behind the implementation of the biometric exit control program.

[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-persp...

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-suspends-biden-administra...

[3] https://www.vera.org/news/children-are-still-being-separated...

[4] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/09/08/dhs-publishes-fair-and-h...

>>arctic+162
I would definitely say that the progressive caucus inside the Democratic party is pro-immigration. If it were not for the two party system, this would be its own party. Regrettably this sub-group does not have a ton of influence on their party’s policies, but their influence has been growing for sure since 2018, getting almost a 100 seats in this years mid-term election. Not all districts have the option of voting a progressive (which most likely happens in a democratic primary vote), and quite a lot of times a progressive actually looses to a moderate (or even a conservative in the case of Cisneros vs. Cuellar in TX-28). But my feeling is that the progressive caucus has not stopped growing, my hope is that this will result in a significant reform in the kind of immigration policy the democratic party endorses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Cauc...