#benefits of immigration reform

[aniket12345]

Navigating the Immigration Process: Dos and Don’ts

Regarding the immigration realm, the procedure can be intricate and multifaceted. It's crucial to understand the ins and outs of the immigration process to avoid unpleasant surprises, whether you're doing it for school, family reunion, or simply the desire to start over in a new nation. The following Dos and Don'ts are advised by Reform Immigration Consulting and Visa Services. In Toronto, we are the top immigration consultants. As Mississauga's immigration consultants, we advise adhering to these dos and don'ts so that the individual has the knowledge and comprehension needed to make their immigration journey less of a blind alley and more of a well-lit one.

[anistarrose]

I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.

We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.

We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.

I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.

Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)

Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.

[metamatar]

some of you are being outflanked from the left by the jacobin. lol.

For many loyal Democrats, this will not compute. The Biden economy, party-loyal pundits have said over and over again, is tremendous — low unemployment, strong GDP growth, slowing inflation, a booming stock market — and anyone unhappy about it must simply be brainwashed. Out of view in this self-congratulatory hall of mirrors were the constant statistics that said otherwise: evictions up past pre-pandemic levels, record-high homelessness, cost-burdened renters at an all-time high, median household income lower than the last pre-pandemic year, inequality returning to pre-pandemic levels, and food insecurity and poverty growing by large double digits since 2021, including a historic spike in child poverty. Here’s another thing you might not have heard. Largely due to a trick of history, including the COVID-19 pandemic and a Democratic-controlled Congress, Trump was partly responsible for the creation of what the New York Times called “something akin to a European-style welfare state” in 2020 that reduced inequality and even helped some Americans improve their finances for a short spell — and under Biden, all of it went away. Sometimes that happened due to factors outside Biden’s control and sometimes because of his own decisions, but it always took place with little fight from the president, and it contributed to the ominous rise in hardship under his tenure. That meant not only adding to people’s already onerous monthly expenses — in one case in a self-imposed October surprise that made student loan repayment much more unforgiving for tens of millions of borrowers just before voting. It also saw twenty-five million people being thrown off their public health insurance, many of them in some of the battleground states Harris lost last night. Recall that one of Biden’s attack lines against Trump four years ago was that Trump was going to strip twenty million people of their health insurance. This might have been mitigated had the president passed the flagship policies on his agenda, helping people weather the storm of rising living costs. Those that he did enact he sometimes self-sabotaged. (...)

As a result, Harris’s run was a major downgrade from the 2020 Democratic effort. Biden’s never-passed ambitions to historically expand the social safety net became firmly relegated to distant memory, never to be revived; only the child tax credit and a modest expansion of Medicare benefits survived. The campaign combined a sharp rightward lurch on foreign policy and immigration with a handful of laudable populist proposals to ban price gouging and help out first-time homebuyers (while largely avoiding the national 5 percent rent cap that Biden desperately took on before dropping out and that had earlier made its way into the Democratic platform). Beyond the Medicare proposal and vague promises to protect and strengthen Obamacare, the idea of reforming the broken US health care system — one of Americans’ biggest and most anxiety-inducing costs — was almost entirely absent from the campaign. When voters in a Univision town hall came to Harris with their bleak personal stories of suffering under the health care system and asked how she would solve them, she could give them nothing, because her only real major health care policy was for those over sixty-five and already insured under Medicare.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Why, after every electoral loss, is the left always the scapegoat? It’s easier to blame activists for pushing a progressive agenda than confront the real issue: the Democratic Party has long been shaped by far more powerful forces—corporate interests, lobbyists, and consultants—whose influence has neglected the real crises facing everyday Americans. We see this cycle again and again. Contrary to establishment narratives, the Democratic leadership has often resisted advocacy organizations pushing for bold reforms on immigration, Big Tech, climate, debt, healthcare, rent, mass incarceration, Palestinian rights, and for policies like the Build Back Better agenda. This tension isn’t just about differing priorities—it reveals the actual balance of forces in the party. Corporate donors on Wall Street and Silicon Valley pour billions into campaigns, shaping agendas to suit their interests. A consultant class reaps millions from flawed strategies and failed candidates yet continues to fail upward, perpetuating a pattern of mediocrity. They, not progressives, are the roadblock preventing Democrats from becoming a populist force that could disrupt the status quo and win back voters of all stripes. It was these elements within the party that kneecapped the Democrats’ most ambitious efforts to help ordinary Americans. The Biden administration entered with huge plans, notably Build Back Better, which would have delivered immediate relief: expanded child tax credits, free community college, universal child care and pre-K, paid leave, and more. Progressives pushed mightily for Build Back Better to pass. It was centrist obstruction—namely Senators Manchin and Sinema—that blocked those policies. The result was a patchwork of long-term measures like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, whose benefits won’t be felt until 2025 at the earliest, if at all. By failing to pass Build Back Better, Democrats lost the chance to deliver easy-to-understand, tangible economic benefits and solidify their image as the party of working people. And it was corporate Democrats—particularly lobbyists like Harris’s brother-in-law, former Uber executive Tony West, and David Plouffe—who held the most sway over Harris’s campaign. They advised her to cozy up to ultra-wealthy celebrities, Liz and Dick Cheney, and Mark Cuban, and avoid populist rhetoric that could have distanced her from the corporate elites who dominate the party. In 2024, the biggest spenders in Democratic Party politics weren’t progressives—it was AIPAC, cryptocurrency PACs, and corporate giants like Uber, all of whom poured millions into Democratic campaigns without regard for public opinion or the will of the people.

18 November 2024

[qrfit]

I don’t know who needs to hear this but:

Empathy isn’t just caring about people you relate to. It’s also about caring for those you may not understand.

I am not a gay person, but I want gay people to have rights. I’m not trans, but I want trans people to be protected. I’m not an immigrant, but I want a pathway to citizenship. I’m not in prison. But, I want prison reform. I’m not an autoworker. But, I want a strong UAW. I may never need an abortion, but I want every woman to have the freedom and safety of reproductive healthcare.

When other people have the rights and protections they need, our society as a whole benefits. There is less crime. There are less suicides. There is less drug use. There is more unity, productivity, and functionality within that community.

And we all can relate to that.

So…be better. Think bigger. Play the long game.

Play chess. Checkers is weak.

[xhxhxhx]

Eli got his ballot the other day.

I didn't get one.

I am not a citizen of the United States, or any of them. But that's not what keeps me from the ballot.

The States may extend the franchise to mere residents, and to persons who, like me, are not citizens of the United States. It just happens that California has not done so.

The Constitution requires that the members of its Congress, the Representatives and Senators of the United States, and the Presidents of the United States, be citizens of the United States, for terms of years or from birth. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 2; id. § 3, cl. 3; id. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.

But the Constitution does not require that electors for the House and Senate be citizens of the United States. It only asks that they be part of the People of the State and have the same qualifications as the electors for more numerous branch of the State legislature. Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 1; id. amend. XVII.

The Constitution denies Congress any power to set elector qualifications. Congress has power to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections, id. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, but not qualifications of electors. That was a matter for the States.

The supporters of the Constitution pledged that it would tie Congress's hands. Congress could not manipulate the franchise. But the Constitution likewise denied to States a share of the electoral power. The States would not be able to manipulate the federal franchise without changing their own.

But the material here is that Constitution tied the federal franchise to the States, denying Congress any power manipulate the franchise for the benefit of its current members. "To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper," James Madison observed in Federalist No. 52.

But in 1996, Congress regulated it.

In a little provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, § 216(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-572, Congress made it a federal crime for any alien to vote in any election for member of Congress or for Presidential electors. 18 U.S.C. § 611.

Congress didn't adopt the State qualifications. Congress didn't make an exemption the aliens expressly authorized by State law. Congress made its own law, its own franchise, for its own elections. It left the State franchise, for State elections, as it had been.

The one Senator who spoke on this provision, Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, said he thought that that limitation, to elections to Congress and for President, was what made it alright, rather than a patent violation of the Constitutional design.

No, Congress did precisely what the Constitution prohibits: It made an occasional regulation of the qualifications of electors for the House, the Senate, and electors of the President.

Today, if a State qualifies aliens to elect the more numerous branch of the State legislature, Congress has made it a federal crime to let vote for members of the House, despite the Constitution's plain command to the contrary.

Congress made following the Constitution a federal crime. No matter what the States might say about it. No matter what the Constitution might say about it. That's the law, they say.

That isn't what keeps me from the ballot. No, I'm kept from the ballot for the right reason: California doesn't let me.

In California, resident aliens like me can't vote for the more numerous branch of the State legislature. The State Constitution says that "a United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote." Cal. Const. art. II, § 2(a). And no one else.

But the federal criminal prohibition? The little occasional regulation of electors for Congress and the President of the United States that we've put at 18 U.S.C. § 611?

That's an act that we shouldn't dignify with the name of "law."

[beauty-funny-trippy]

It looks like House Republicans are giving up on trying to impeach Joe Biden.

Republicans started this impeachment inquiry, not because they were aware of a crime, but because they were hoping, if they looked hard enough, maybe they would find one. They desperately wanted to find a crime not for the sake of justice, but rather, to satisfy some petty need for revenge.

It's been almost a year now of intensive investigations and they haven't found any evidence of any crimes. It turned out to be a huge waste of time and a huge waste of taxpayers' dollars. It's no surprise to anyone that this Republican controlled Congress is widely considered to be among the least productive in all of American history.

Instead of tackling important issues that could actually benefit the American people (healthcare, immigration reform, gun violence, poverty, etc), Republicans decided to work on salvaging their own political careers. They longed for the publicity they would receive if they actually found some wrongdoing by the president.

Hey Republicans, I heard a rumor that once, back in 1957, Biden tried to buy an ice cream cone with an expired coupon. You guys should look into that.

P.S. – have you checked to see if he has any overdue library books?

[mariacallous]

At first, she didn’t think much about the Nicaraguan asylum-seekers who began moving into town a few years ago. Rosa was an immigrant too, one of the many undocumented Mexican immigrants who’d settled nearly 30 years ago in Whitewater, a small university town in southeast Wisconsin.

Some of the Nicaraguans had found housing in Rosa’s neighborhood, a trailer park at the edge of town. They sent their children to the same public schools. And they got jobs in the same factories and food-processing facilities that employed many of Rosa’s friends and relatives.

Then Rosa realized that many of the newcomers with ongoing asylum cases could apply for work permits and driver’s licenses — state and federal privileges that are unavailable to undocumented immigrants. Rosa’s feelings of indifference turned to frustration and resentment.

“It’s not fair,” said Rosa, who works as a janitor. “Those of us who have been here for years get nothing.”

Her anger is largely directed at President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for failing to produce meaningful reforms to the immigration system that could benefit people like her. In our reporting on the new effects of immigration, ProPublica interviewed dozens of long-established Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives in cities like Denver and Chicago and in small towns along the Texas border. Over and over, they spoke of feeling resentment as they watched the government ease the transition of large numbers of asylum-seekers into the U.S. by giving them access to work permits and IDs, and in some cities spending millions of dollars to provide them with food and shelter.

...

Among those residents is one of Rosa’s friends and neighbors who asked to be identified by one of her surnames, Valadez, because she is undocumented and fears deportation. A single mother who cleans houses and buildings for a living, Valadez makes extra money on the side by driving immigrants who don’t have cars to and from work and to run errands. It’s a risky side hustle, though, because she’s frequently been pulled over and ticketed by police for driving without a license, costing her thousands of dollars in fines.

One day two summers ago, one of her sons found a small purse at a carnival in town. Inside they found a Wisconsin driver’s license, a work permit issued to a Nicaraguan woman and $300 in cash. Seeing the contents filled Valadez with bitterness. She asked her son to turn in the purse to the police but kept the $300. “I have been here for 21 years,” she said. “I have five children who are U.S. citizens. And I can’t get a work permit or a driver’s license.”

When she told that story to Rosa one afternoon this spring, her friend nodded emphatically in approval. Rosa, like Valadez, couldn’t vote. But two of Rosa’s U.S.-born children could, and they cast ballots for Trump. One of Rosa’s sons even drives a car with a bumper sticker that says “Let’s Go Brandon” — a popular anti-Biden slogan.

Rosa said she is glad her children voted for Trump. She’s not too worried about deportation, although she asked to be identified solely by her first name to reduce the risk. She believes Trump wants to deport criminals, not people like her who crossed the border undetected in the 1990s but haven’t gotten in trouble with the law. “They know who has been behaving well and who hasn’t been,” she said.

...

Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist, said it’s wishful thinking to believe Trump will give any special treatment to undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the U.S. for a long time. But he’s heard that sentiment among Latino voters in focus groups.

“They believe that they are playing by the rules and that they will be rewarded for it,” Madrid said. “Republicans have never been serious about legal migration, let alone illegal migration. They’re allowing themselves to believe that for no good reason.”

...

Some of the Haitian migrants were eventually deported; others were allowed into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims and given notices to appear in court in a backlogged immigration system that can take years to resolve a case. “That to me is offensive for those who have been living here for more than 10 years and haven’t been able to adjust their status,” Garza Castillo said.

He hopes Trump seizes on the opportunity to expand support from Latino voters by creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who’ve been here for years. “If he does that,” he said, “I think the Republican Party will be strong here for a long time.”

Immigrants’ Resentment Over New Arrivals Helped Boost Trump’s Popularity With Latino Voters

[political-us]

Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump have proposed several initiatives that could impact the wealth of lower and middle-class Americans:

Implementation of Tariffs: Trump's administration has imposed tariffs on various imported goods, aiming to protect domestic industries. However, these tariffs have led to increased prices for everyday items, disproportionately affecting lower and middle-income consumers. For instance, tariffs on washing machines resulted in higher costs for American shoppers, outweighing the economic benefits for local workers.

WSJ.COM

Simplification of the Tax Code: Musk and Trump have considered overhauling the U.S. tax system, potentially moving towards a flat tax. While this could simplify filing, it might also eliminate deductions that benefit low and middle-income families, potentially increasing their tax burdens.

ECONOMICTIMES.INDIATIMES.COM

Reduction of Federal Spending: Appointed by Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk aims to cut federal spending by up to $2 trillion. Proposed measures include reducing the federal workforce and eliminating certain government programs. Such cuts could lead to job losses and reduced services that many lower and middle-class individuals rely on.

FINANCE.YAHOO.COM

Dismantling of Foreign Aid Programs: Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have been involved in dismantling USAID, affecting numerous health and development programs worldwide. Critics argue that while reform is necessary, abrupt shutdowns can have harmful impacts on aid-dependent regions and may also affect global stability, indirectly impacting the U.S. economy and its citizens.

NEWYORKER.COM

These initiatives, while aimed at economic efficiency and protectionism, carry potential risks for lower and middle-class Americans, including higher consumer prices, increased tax burdens, job losses, and reduced access to essential services.

Elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): Elon Musk has advocated for dismantling the CFPB, an agency established to protect consumers from unfair financial practices. Abolishing the CFPB could expose consumers to predatory lending and financial scams, disproportionately affecting lower and middle-income individuals.

DEMOCRATS-FINANCIALSERVICES.HOUSE.GOV

Proposed Cuts to Social Programs: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, has proposed significant reductions in federal spending, including cuts to social programs like Medicaid and SNAP. These programs provide essential support to low-income families, and reducing their funding could lead to decreased access to healthcare and nutrition assistance.

FORBES.COM

Potential Impact of Immigration Policies: Trump's stringent immigration policies, including mass deportations, could lead to labor shortages in industries such as agriculture and construction, potentially driving up costs for goods and services. These increased costs may be passed on to consumers, affecting lower and middle-class households.

INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

[odinsblog]

It was something that really began to happen when the United States decided that it would interlock the immigration system with the criminal legal system. So some people call it the criminal immigration system, which is not a term that I coined. It's something that immigration law experts coined.

But when Congress passed a certain series of laws in the 1980s and 90s, what they wanted to do was create a system in which people who were accused of crimes, particularly at the time, drug crimes, would be able to be immediately deported in a way that was basically faster. So they didn't have to be convicted. So normally, if you're accused of a crime, you have a right to a trial, then you might be convicted or acquitted, or you might plea out.

But if you are determined to be undocumented, you can actually be put into deportation proceedings before anyone brings you to trial. So you just are arrested and charged, and you can go immediately into deportation proceedings. And it turned out that this was a pretty effective way for police to interact with the immigration system.

And sheriffs became a lynch point originally because they run county jails.

So county jails are kind of the first stop if you're arrested. If you are unfortunate enough to be arrested, you will go through the county jail, at which point they take your ID, your fingerprints, right?

They take a variety of information. And sheriffs kind of became really useful because they were in the jail already, so they could interview people, ask them where they were from, ask them if they had proof of citizenship, and then help ICE put them into deportation proceedings. And alongside that, sheriffs were also able to make some money by housing people awaiting deportation in their jails.

That's also the benefit for them. The federal government houses about 25% of immigrants in detention in county jails right now. And they pay these sheriffs a per diem.

So they get paid sort of per day to keep people in their jails. And it's one of the ways that sheriffs are able to use that jail kind of as a political tool, right, to make money for their county.

So under Trump, two things happened. One was that anti-immigration groups, so I mentioned the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. That was a group that was already in existence.

They are an anti-immigrant group. And they began to email sheriffs, especially sheriffs that they knew were kind of constitutional sheriffs or in the far right sheriff atmosphere and say, hey, would you like to help the Trump administration deport more people? And many of them said, sure.

And so using this anti-immigrant group, the Trump administration recruited more sheriffs to join a program called 287G. And 287G is a federal program that essentially deputizes sheriffs and their deputies to act as immigration agents. So under Trump, many, many more sheriffs joined this 287G program.

Now, the 287G program is a bit interesting because it doesn't include any funding for the sheriffs, but it is something that sheriffs used to say that they were tough on immigration.

-Jessica Pishko, The Unchecked Power Of Sheriffs

[holy-politics-batman]

How Peter Duton has consistently Voted in parliament

Spoiler: He hates you Not everything is terrible, but holy shit it gets bad and a lot of it is bad (Source at the bottom)

Voted for:

A citizenship test

A plebiscite on the carbon pricing mechanism (Remove the tax on carbon)

A same-sex marriage plebiscite (plebiscite means to get rid of)

An Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC)

Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014

Charging postgraduate research students fees

Civil celebrants having the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples

Compensating victims of overseas terrorism since the September 11 attack

Decreasing availability of welfare payments

Deregulating undergraduate university fees (Removing any restrictions on the amount that universities can charge students for tuition)

Drug testing welfare recipients

Getting rid of Sunday and public holiday penalty rates

Greater control over items brought into immigration detention centres

Having a referendum on whether to create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament (To be fair he also did recently have a trantrum because he didn't want to stand infrount of the Aboriginal flag, so)

Increasing eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship

Government administered paid parental leave

Increasing indexation of HECS-HELP debts (HECS-HELP is basically student loans)

Increasing state and territory environmental approval powers

Increasing the cost of humanities degrees (Humanities include: History, Geography, Philosophy, Religion, Citizenship, Economics, Business, ect)

Increasing the price of subsidised medicine

Prioritising religious freedom

Privatising government-owned assets

Putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on a temporary basis as a trial

Recognising local government in the Constitution

Reducing the corporate tax rate

Senate electoral reform

Stopping people who arrive by boat from ever coming to Australia

Temporary Exclusion Orders

Temporary protection visas

The territories being able to legalise euthanasia

Turning back asylum boats when possible

A combined Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Banning mobiles and other devices in immigration detention

Increasing scrutiny of unions

Implementing refugee and protection conventions

Putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on an ongoing basis

Privatising certain government services

Voluntary student union fees

Increasing funding for road infrastructure

Increasing the initial tax rate for working holiday makers to 19%

Increasing the Medicare Levy to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Making more water from Murray-Darling Basin available to use

The Coalition's new schools funding policy ("Gonski 2.0")

The Intervention in the Northern Territory

Voted against:

A carbon price

A minerals resource rent tax

A Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with Disability

A transition plan for coal workers

Banning pay secrecy clauses

Capping gas prices

Carbon farming

Considering legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission (procedural)

Considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)

Criminalising wage theft

Decreasing the private health insurance rebate

Doctor-initiated medical transfers for asylum seekers

Ending illegal logging

Ending immigration detention on Manus Island

Extending government benefits to same-sex couples

Federal action on public housing

Federal government action on animal & plant extinctions

Increasing availability of abortion drugs

Increasing consumer protections

Increasing funding for university education

Increasing housing affordability

Increasing investment in renewable energy

Increasing legal protections for LGBTI people

Increasing marine conservation

Increasing penalties for breach of data

Increasing political transparency

Increasing protection of Australia's fresh water

Increasing restrictions on gambling

Increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management

Increasing support for the Australian film and TV industry

Increasing support for the Australian shipping industry

Increasing the diversity of media ownership

Increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

Increasing transparency of big business by making information public

Market-led approaches to protecting biodiversity

Net zero emissions by 2035

Re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals (Agvet chemicals protect crops and livestock)

Removing children from immigration detention

Reproductive bodily autonomy

Requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements

Restricting donations to political parties

Restricting foreign ownership

Same-sex marriage equality

Stem cell research

Stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

The Paris Climate Agreement

Tobacco plain packaging

Transgender rights

Treating the COVID vaccine rollout as a matter of urgency

Mix

Reducing tax concessions for high socio-economic status

Increasing competition in bulk wheat export

Mostly Yes

Speeding things along in Parliament (procedural)

Unconventional gas mining

A character test for Australian visas

Increasing or removing the Government debt limit

Regional processing of asylum seekers

Mostly No

Increasing the age pension

Net zero emissions by 2050

Suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)

Vehicle efficiency standards

Increasing support for rural and regional Australia

Letting all MPs or Senators speak in Parliament (procedural)

Source

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dickson/peter_dutton

[dirtyriver]

Arnold Schwarzenegger:

I don’t really do endorsements. I’m not shy about sharing my views, but I hate politics and don’t trust most politicians.

I also understand that people want to hear from me because I am not just a celebrity, I am a former Republican Governor.

My time as Governor taught me to love policy and ignore politics. I’m proud of the work I did to help clean up our air, create jobs, balance the budget, make the biggest infrastructure investment in state history, and take power from the politicians and give it back to the people when it comes to our redistricting process and our primaries in California.

That’s policy. It requires working with the other side, not insulting them to win your next election, and I know it isn’t sexy to most people, but I love it when I can help make people’s lives better with policies, like I still do through my institute at USC, where we fight for clean air and stripping the power from the politicians who rig the system against the people.

Let me be honest with you: I don’t like either party right now. My Republicans have forgotten the beauty of the free market, driven up deficits, and rejected election results. Democrats aren’t any better at dealing with deficits, and I worry about their local policies hurting our cities with increased crime.

It is probably not a surprise that I hate politics more than ever, which, if you are a normal person who isn’t addicted to this crap, you probably understand.

I want to tune out.

But I can’t. Because rejecting the results of an election is as un-American as it gets. To someone like me who talks to people all over the world and still knows America is the shining city on a hill, calling America is a trash can for the world is so unpatriotic, it makes me furious.

And I will always be an American before I am a Republican.

That’s why, this week, I am voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

I’m sharing it with all of you because I think there are a lot of you who feel like I do. You don’t recognize our country. And you are right to be furious.

For decades, we’ve talked about the national debt. For decades, we’ve talked about comprehensive immigration reform that secures the border while fixing our broken immigration system. And Washington does nothing.

The problems just keep rolling, and we all keep getting angrier, because the only people that benefit from problems aren’t you, the people. The only people that benefit from this crap are the politicians who prefer having talking points to win elections to the public service that will make Americans’ lives better.

It is a just game to them. But it is life for my fellow Americans. We should be pissed!

But a candidate who won’t respect your vote unless it is for him, a candidate who will send his followers to storm the Capitol while he watches with a Diet Coke, a candidate who has shown no ability to work to pass any policy besides a tax cut that helped his donors and other rich people like me but helped no one else else, a candidate who thinks Americans who disagree with him are the bigger enemies than China, Russia, or North Korea - that won’t solve our problems.

It will just be four more years of bullshit with no results that makes us angrier and angrier, more divided, and more hateful.

We need to close the door on this chapter of American history, and I know that former President Trump won’t do that. He will divide, he will insult, he will find new ways to be more un-American than he already has been, and we, the people, will get nothing but more anger.

That’s enough reason for me to share my vote with all of you. I want to move forward as a country, and even though I have plenty of disagreements with their platform, I think the only way to do that is with Harris and Walz.

Vote this week. Turn the page and put this junk behind us.

And even if you disagree with me, vote, because that’s what we do as Americans. http://vote.org

[llyfrenfys]

I know the news about JK Rowling and Labour is bleak - but for those of you who didn't watch, yesterday I watched the BBC Wales leaders debate and the Tory (David T.C. Davies) said something about 'protecting women's rights from trans ideology'. To which members of the studio audience audibly groaned and a few shouted shame on you.

Yes, it's massively disappointing that Starmer is yet again trying to pander to the transphobes. But the debate last night was about cost of living, the NHS, the housing ladder, immigration and benefit reform. Most of the electorate (in the nicest possible way) don't care about trans people. Most people are fine with trans people and care more about being able to feed their kids than culture war policies.

Of course, if a Labour government gets in in Westminster we need to continue to hold them to account if they try and pursue any transphobic policy. But for now, pay it no mind and look after yourself.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Wallace White

A top Democrat fundraising platform hosts donations for an activist group linked to a Palestinian terrorist-tied non-profit, the Washington Examiner reported on Thursday.

ActBlue, a Democrat fundraising platform, hosts a portal for donors to give money to the Colorado Freedom Fund (CFF), a bail reform non-profit that is fiscally sponsored and managed by the Alliance For Global Justice (AFGJ), the Examiner reported. The Examiner revealed the AFGJ was aiding fundraising efforts for French non-profit Collectif Palestine Vaincra (CPV), a partner of the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In response, Zachor Legal Institute pressed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in January 2023 to investigate the AFGJ’s seeming support for terrorist organizations, the Examiner reported. Zachor attorney Marc Greendorfer said to the Examiner the AFGJ’s lack of due diligence was “surprising.”

“Alliance for Global Justice has a track record of funding terror,” Greendorfer told the Examiner. He noted that AFGJ has a duty to donors to “do a better job of vetting those who use its platforms, especially when the user has a long, documented history of supporting terror.” 

AFGJ has a history of fiscally sponsoring pro-Palestinian organizations, with credit card company Discover shutting down donations to the AFGJ in 2021 over ties to Samidoun, a non-profit with links to the PFLP, according to NGO Monitor.

Thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters are gathering outside of the White House in Washington, D.C., USA, on June 8, 2024, to express distaste over how President Biden is handling the Israel-Hamas war. (Photo by AASHISH KIPHAYET/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

The CFF is a left-leaning criminal justice advocacy organization that posts bail for incarcerated people before trial and immigrant detention, according to Influence Watch. AFGJ gave the CFF $1.44 million in 2021 for “racial justice”, according to their 2021 tax filings.

“AFGJ fiscally sponsors and repeatedly defends Samidoun, a terror front that acts on behalf of Hamas and other terror organizations,”Greendorfer told the Examiner. “As a fiscal sponsor, AFGJ benefits from any funds it raises for its terror clients.”

ActBlue did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

[mightyflamethrower]

In a recent interview with Fox News Digital, Allen pointed to Executive Order 14019, which was issued in 2021, arguing the Biden administration’s broad interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 “weaponizes and mobilizes the entire federal government apparatus to become voter registration agencies.”

The secretary said his office first began looking into the matter after receiving a complaint from a concerned voter who received a voter registration form in the mail from an Alabama state agency addressed to a deceased relative who had passed away two years ago. Investigating further, Allen said his office discovered that state agencies, including Medicaid and other welfare offices that receive funding from the federal government, are required to provide voter registration forms to anyone who comes into contact with that agency under the NVRA.

That includes illegal immigrants and non-citizens, Allen said, arguing how the 2021 executive order came without tools to verify the forms are sent to only U.S. citizens.

These individuals receive information on voter registration regardless of whether they are ultimately approved to receive the public benefits they applied for, he said.

“And that’s why it’s so vitally important that the federal government, Congress, reform the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and then allow the states to conduct their own voter registration, take it out of the hands of the federal government,” Allen said. “It’s through state agencies that are federally funded and, of course, mandated by federal law, which is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. And it doesn’t matter how they come in contact through the mail or through in-person or through online, if they are applying for these public benefits, if they come in contact with that agency, they are receiving the voter registration form. And that’s very, very troubling that non-citizens, whether legal or illegal immigrants, are receiving those voter registration forms.”

[samueldays]

You said you don't believe in democracy. How do you believe society should work?

It should work well.

Ha ha only serious; I imagine one of the things going wrong is that targeting a form of governance as such wastes a lot of energy with 1) people trying to solve problems by doubling down on the form, 2) ruleslawyers hiding behind the form.

I don't have a fully worked out theory, I lean anarcho-monarchist, I don't think I need a fully worked out theory to observe that democracy on That Island 1) thoroughly failed to deliver on its repeated promise, 2) was unashamed by failing to deliver. It's on an island, damn it. Immigration control should be absolutely trivial there.

Labour promised reduced immigration, Labour didn't deliver, the people voted out Labour and voted in Conservative which promised reduced immigration, Conservative didn't deliver either, and so on, for five elections in a row.

"but what if the king was terrible" - what, are you suggesting the king might respond to repeated gang-rape slave-ring scandals by importing more stormtroopers from Rapeslaveland? 🙄

"but historical monarchies sucked" - yeah, they sucked because they were mostly pre-electricity. Metapolitical opinion: almost everything good of the past thousand years was produced by, putting it crudely, techbros. Electricity, petroleum, the steam engine, the cotton gin, the tractor, the Haber-Bosch process, the mechanical loom, the crane, and so on. We live well mostly because of automation machines and cheap energy, and government form is secondary.

Activists and reformers are sometimes redistributing the benefits of machines, sometimes they're making things worse, as we see today with "environmentalists" spending the last few decades blocking nuclear power that would be both clean and cheap. The batshit insane German Green Party even voted to shut down a nuclear power plant that was already running.

Then, because energy is fungible, winters are cold, and relying on Russian oil supply sucks, Germany had to re-open a previously closed coal power plant. Way to protect the planet, Greens! 🙄