314

Biden says he'll shut down the border if deal gives him authority (www.politico.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

256 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

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

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago

Not by much, I'd wager. Democrats don't tend to sway their opinions much when the party takes a different line than the majority Dem opinion, and Republicans are too racist to change their views on the border.

It would be nice to have a voice of sanity in the fucking country, though.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

A majority of Democratic voters in the 40s and 50s thought segregation was a state issue the federal government should stay out of because they didn't want the controversy, but some Democratic leaders saw it differently, and thank goodness they did because without them pushing the issue along with civil rights activists we never would have gotten (among other things) a voting rights act.

It wouldn't just be nice to have a voice of sanity, it's the only way this issue is getting any better imo

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

While Truman's advocacy of civil rights in the '48 platform is definitely pivotal in terms of effecting policy, I would raise the question as to how much of the change in opinions was due to the party tack, and how much was due to the ongoing and revitalized post-WW2 civil rights movement and increasing integration and civic participation of liberal blocs in the north.

I suppose it's academic in the end. I would love for the Dem party to take up the issue, like I said. It's just a 'chicken or the egg' question.

this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024

314 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers

1368 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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