Not that Obama's policies towards immigrants and refugees were great. They weren't at all.
Well, you consider any policy other than "let the entire world into America, no borders at all" unjust, so no surprise.
There was definitely exaggeration when Trump took office, but I don't think those fears were wholly unfounded.
There were going to be death squads, America was going to turn into a theocracy, WW3 would happen, we would all be forced to learn Russian, etc. (as was said about Reagan and Bush, apart from the learning Russian). People on the Left were genuinely, seriously calling to go full survivalist and hide out in the hills pointing guns at anybody who got too close to their compound. I literally saw this hysteria firsthand, don't tell me it didn't happen.
Now, there's similar hysteria here and in other conservative internet spaces about Biden, but after my initial panic on election night my position is strictly wait-and-see. And when elements of the left have been spouting rhetoric for four years straight about making lists of us, forcing us to wear symbols on our clothing so they can tell us on sight, imprisoning us in camps, killing us, raping us, and in their more compassionate moments forcibly re-educating us to be good little leftist drones, etc. there is certainly room for concern.
I don't think the Charlottesville rally would have taken place without the election of Trump, for example.
Charlottesville, Charlottesville. As if no WS rallies happened under Obama or any of the Presidents before him. These folks have been there for decades, and they've been neutered since the 1960s. They are and were a non-issue.
the increased activity and access of white supremacists and overtly fascist groups has been alarming.
How much of this is increased activity and how much increased media attention? I would be worried about white supremacists and fascists taking over when open white supremacists and fascists hold institutional power in the media and academia as open black nationalists and Marxists do. When a WS terrorist gets a prestigious university post as various of the 70s left-wing terrorists did, that's the time to worry about them heavily affecting the discourse in society.
And the abuses on the border are very much the sort of things people were afraid of.
The "abuses" of harshly enforcing existing immigration laws, which had the bare minimum of enforcement for decades. Now, one can argue that the law is a bad law and the immigration system needs major reform, and that's a valid political POV to hold. But while the law is law, the government must enforce it.
Partly because congress and the state governments aren't going to be changed, partly because both of them are economic liberals, and partly because Biden is really a very moderate Democrat.
I wouldn't take "moderate" seriously from a guy who thinks governments shouldn't exist at all.
I hope that Biden will stand against attempts to cut benefits like Medicaid, SNAP, the ACA credit, and other programs that people need to live.
Yes, the policies that keep people reliant on government benefits to survive, thus ensuring they vote blue no matter who. Oh, and people need Obamacare to live now, because this was America in 2008:
All of those strike me as very good reasons to vote for Biden, even though he's an utterly flaccid centrist.
Every Dem is a flaccid centrist and even so milquetoast a GOPer as Romney had it said about him that he would bring back slavery.
I don't think any group will be substantially harmed by a Biden presidency.
*The working class (i.e., the people leftism claims to champion).
*The police
*The black community (continuation of failed policies)
*Conservatives, who will once more face political harassment from Federal agencies as under Obama.
*Small business owners under the planned national lockdown.
But we can already tell who'll be the opposite of substantially harmed by Biden's policies - the CCP and the Iranian mullahs, both committed enemies of America. Keeping foreign (actual) theocrats and (actual) fascists on life support to own the cons!
At the most extreme I could see some enforcement of equality of access laws that might anger conservative religious people, but I don't think they will be harmed in the way a trans person losing access to medical coverage for their treatment would be. (I'm thinking here of situations like the baker who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.)
It's not about "equality of access", it's about forcing Christians to violate their moral consciences as a show of power. Like when they tried forcing a group of Catholic nuns to provide abortion drugs to their employees, or indeed when they tried to force a Christian baker to make an edible piece of art celebrating a gay wedding. And being severely fined and possible having your business destroyed for not wanting to support the left-wing cause
de jure is indeed pretty harmful. One just has look at what they did this very year, when they closed churches and designated strip clubs "essential businesses", to get their real attitude toward Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org
www.fairvote.org
www.latimes.com