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

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.

  • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
    11·
    9 months ago

    And if they had taken legitimate military targets or released non military targets within the next day or two, it would be a different story.

    They didn’t, they raided a music festival and kidnapped babies and children.

    They took a legitimate reason and turned it illegitimate.

    Freedom fighters don’t kidnap babies.

    • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      The allies killed over a million civilians in their campaign against the Axis during WW2 through brutal fire bombings and nuclear bombs of civilian cities. Welcome to the brutal reality of war where civilians have always been targeted.

        • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          If one can’t distinguish Tu quoque from identifying a pattern and double-standards, then I suppose we’re done here.

          • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
            1·
            9 months ago

            So then tell me why something that happened 80 years ago means that we should do the same today?

            Tell me why kidnapping babies is ok now because of that

            • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              9 months ago

              Straw-man — never claimed we should.

              But two can play that game:

              Tell me why committing the equivalent of 20 October 7ths in the number of civilians killed directly by Israel (half of whom being children) is okay because of something that happened last year?

              See? We’re in agreement.

              • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
                1·
                9 months ago

                It isn’t. Fuck Israel. They crossed the line even more than Hamas did by an order of magnitude.

                Neither event is justified or even justifiable.

                That doesn’t mean that Hamas didn’t turn a cold/lukewarm war into a hot one.

                Do you think l am trying to defend Israel here?

                • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  Ok fair. I have some disagreements on how someone backed into a corner over an overwhelming force that continues to annex their land should respond, but yes I’d prefer neither event to have occurred.