this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
189 points (100.0% liked)

politics

27143 readers
3012 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration will revoke temporary protected status for thousands of Somali nationals in the United States in the face of White House claims that the diaspora community in Minnesota participated in widespread fraud, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Tuesday.

Noem told Fox News that Somalis with temporary protected status would be required to leave the country by March 17. She argued that conditions in Somalia have improved and added that “allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interest. We are putting Americans first.”

In a separate social media post, the Department of Homeland Security wrote: “Our message is clear. Go back to your own country, or we’ll send you back ourselves.”

The move would affect thousands of Somalis in the United States, though not the majority of the U.S. Somali community, many of which are already permanent residents or U.S. citizens. Yet the announcement comes as the federal government ramps up its immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, the state with the largest Somali population in the United States.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with that logic is that you're assuming you'll just find another job. What if you lived in a city that was super crazy liberal, and no one was hiring you because you were straight. Unfortunately you still need a job to get by, and you can't afford to move if you don't have a job.

But hey, about mistreating you? There's laws about that, too, all part of the package deal that comes with not hiring you based on race. With strict enough penalties companies would rather their employees not be bigots because they don't want to go to court.

A side effect of all this is that bigotry dies in people's hearts when they are exposed to the people they are bigoted against. If there was someone who hated Americans, but then got to actually meet and talk to one and work with one, they would realize Americans aren't all bad and can be pretty nice and chill. So making sure people don't hire based on race helps eliminate racism and keeps things fair for everyone, which helps business innovate by giving people a chance.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with that logic is that you're assuming you'll just find another job. What if you lived in a city that was super crazy liberal, and no one was hiring you because you were straight. Unfortunately you still need a job to get by, and you can't afford to move if you don't have a job.

Oh, is that so? Well, at least you seem to understand that bigotry can cut both ways. That's more than most people here seem to be willing to acknowledge.

That said, if I was faced with that sort of situation, I would to whatever I can to find a way to move somewhere else where I'm welcome.

But hey, about mistreating you? There's laws about that, too, all part of the package deal that comes with not hiring you based on race. With strict enough penalties companies would rather their employees not be bigots because they don't want to go to court.

You can mistreat people in subtle ways that are difficult to sue over or prove in court. Like, giving people bad hours, or passing them over for promotions.

A side effect of all this is that bigotry dies in people's hearts when they are exposed to the people they are bigoted against. If there was someone who hated Americans, but then got to actually meet and talk to one and work with one, they would realize Americans aren't all bad and can be pretty nice and chill. So making sure people don't hire based on race helps eliminate racism and keeps things fair for everyone, which helps business innovate by giving people a chance.

Yes, I do believe this CAN work, but it generally requires at least a shred of willingness to participate. You cannot simply force someone into accepting someone they don't like. That sounds sounds a hell of a lot like raping your way into a relationship, don't you think?

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think, because I don't think getting people to accept other people is anything like rape.

So you say that you get that bigotry can cut both ways, basically people can be bigoted towards anyone, and can happen pretty much anywhere. So one of the only things we can do is make it so bigots can't use their power to hurt people they hate, regardless of who they hate. That's why we have laws against things like, hitting each other and murder. We also have other laws to keep people from discriminating when doing business and hiring people. I think that those are laws that you are in favor of, because you don't want people to discriminate against you.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 6 hours ago

I'm definitely in favor of laws against rape, assault, theft, and murder, but I think bigotry and discrimination are simply too vague a charge to be properly defined or enforced, and will always defeat themselves in the long run anyways.

Say someone is running an Indian restaurant, should they be forced to hire white people? Would you trust that you're getting authentic Indian food if either the chef, or even the serving staff was predominantly Chinese? Would you go to a Chinese restaurant run by Mexicans an expect authentic Chinese cuisine, or a Mexican restaurant run by white people, and expect proper, authentic cuisine?

All of these examples sound extremely racist on the surface, but let's be honest, chances are extremely high that someone of the same ethnicity is vastly more qualified to work there than someone who's not, because they simply understand the culture and the flavors better. And of course there are always counterexamples, but those are the exception rather than the norm.

Meritocracy simply means having to earn your laurels by putting in effort and proving yourself. You don't need to legislate that because cream rises to the top all by itself. It doesn't rise any faster because there are laws requiring it to do so, just like the sun doesn't rise any faster if you make a law requiring it to do so.