The House GOP opposing a deal on border security reveals their dangerously cynical political strategy

Dan Pfeiffer: “To summarize, Johnson demands a border bill in exchange for passing Ukraine aid; the White House and Senate work on a border bill; Johnson opposes the bill without even seeing it, despite repeatedly declaring that the ‘crisis at the border’ is the House GOP’s top priority.”

“Some commentary suggests that Johnson keeps moving the goalpost to prevent his caucus from having to vote on Ukraine aid, which is vehemently opposed by MAGA Republicans but enthusiastically supported by the Republican establishment and more moderate GOPers. With Johnson in perpetual danger of being McCarthy-ed, I am sure avoiding a tough vote is a factor. However, I think Johnson and the Republicans have another more nefarious reason — they want a crisis at the border to help them in the election.”

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      3·
      10 months ago

      51st state? How about 51-65th state? Have you ever spoken to a Mexican that lives in Mexico?

      It’s pretty clear the mexican population would rather be part of our country, and not separated by all these barriers.

      It’s not at all clear that that’s the case.

      And once, most of western America WAS part of Mexico.

      Maybe you should give those lands back to Mexico. Way fewer people would be changing countries than if Mexico joined the USA.

      allow our capitalism to help put money into the coffers of the people of mexico

      You know that they have capitalism in Mexico too right?

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          1·
          10 months ago

          As a Canadian I also sometimes envy the opportunities that exist in the USA but I absolutely would not want Canada to be a 51st (& 52nd?) state. (Not would I actually seek to move there)

          You do know that even though they have capitalism in Mexico, it doesn’t trickle down to benefit any of the people there, right?

          Yes, this is an inherent challenge with capitalism (capital concentration).

          I just do not understand why every concept that might work always has to be questioned this way as if it was anymore ridiculous or intolerable than he current migrant situation at the border.

          I mean I think it’s important to question ideas before implementing them, but you’re right that your country (and mine) have some serious challenges to tackle with respect to migration. Mexico also struggles with migration across its southern (and coastal?) border(s).

          It looks like in 2013 about 60% of Mexicans favoured forming a single country with the USA (if doing so would improve their standard of living). That data is over 10 years old and a lot has changed since then but honestly it’s higher than I would have thought.

            • m0darn@lemmy.ca
              1·
              10 months ago

              Yeah I’m also interested in reducing barriers to migration from a human rights perspective.

              But I think we need to reduce international disparities in standard of living before open borders would really work.

              I think trade penalties against countries with high degrees of wealth concentration and/or without living wage regulations etc might help. Idk.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      2·
      10 months ago

      I’m going to take your post at face value to explore the foundational premise that the Mexican population wants to be part of the USA.

      Do they? Sure, many come here, because of opportunities, but making Mexico a state won’t suddenly make Mexico rich. Hell, Central Pennsylvania has been a part of the US since the beginning, and it’s as poor as dirt.

      I don’t know - I’m not qualified to speak on behalf of any immigrants, except perhaps my great-great-something Euro ancestors - but I suspect the Mexicans who come here do so despite the fact that it’s America, because it’s better than starving at home. Making them us is probably just as distasteful to them as is would be to the RePubeLickans. Now, if we could help make them more prosperous… that, they’d be happy about.