The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

  • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    Treating people’s lives like political pawns in a campaign is NOT okay. Stop trying to normalize this shit.

    Don’t ever speak to me again. Enabling this shit is a horrible thing to do to people. Let’s put you in a camp or send you into a violent situation and see how much you like it. “BuT iT’s ElEcTiOn YeAr” I don’t care

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      I say again since you’re obviously deflecting: It’s one thing to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery, but another to look at the pragmatic reality and actual viable options versus consequences.

      You can live with your idealistic pyrrhic victory while you naively reject the reality of the political consequences and put someone far worse in power. But you do you, buddy.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wish we could be idealistic, but the reality is that too many people are under informed, under educated, or otherwise trained to blame the country’s problems on minorities.

        The idealists in this thread thinking “let’s say the right thing now, let the bad guys take over, then we’ll just have a little 'ol revolution” have their heads up their asses. They need to take a serious look at the middle east and their royals in golden palaces. That is the Republican end game.

      • Transporter Room 3
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        People like them have no actual solution, they just like screaming that you’re wrong while they’re right.

        It’s almost like dealing with a MAGAt.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Oh, how awfully convenient!

            But true, it’s better defined as a dilemma. The dichotomy between doing nothing because one’s hands are tied, or investing in a move that gives you power to address it down the road.

            … You know… By not handing the keys back to the real racist.

            But some people don’t think that many chess moves ahead, I guess.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Frankly it makes me wonder if they are. Unfortunately we know it’s a common tactic for them to pretend they’re leftist and wedge-drive to sow apathy.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Removed, rule 3:

        “Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Removed, rule 3:

          “Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Removed, rule 3:

            “Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah I admit I chuckled at this.

        I got major, “Don’t speak to me or my son ever again!” vibes lol.