the_dunk_tank

15988 readers

1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

113

Jonald Bidump (hexbear.net)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Link to the post

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Article

The envisioned changes would make it much harder for officials to end the partial asylum ban by tweaking the threshold at which it would be deactivated.

. . .

Under the changes, however, the asylum restrictions would only deactivate if the seven-day average stays below 1,500 for 28 days. It would also include more migrants in the deactivation trigger's calculations. Currently, crossings by non-Mexican unaccompanied children are excluded. The updated calculations would include all unaccompanied children.

Naturally the article goes on to accept all sorts of false premises about immigrants, refuses to examine the ways in which Biden and Trump have violated international law (beyond some token, detail-free quotations from the ACLU), and never once uses the word "refugee" or asks why people might want to flee their homes.