- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
Why do Democrats keep trying to appease Fascists?
Because this will undercut the only politically popular Republican position, which Republicans are currently wielding as a cudgel against the Biden Administration. In the process, Republicans are treating the people crossing the border worse and worse, increasing human suffering. If Biden can take control of the narrative of the border, there is a real possibility he can start to make things better and decrease human suffering.
There’s a possibility he can, but no possibility he will.
What other option does the Biden administration have when working with Republican border states, a split Congress, and a massive right-wing media megaphone of disinformation?
The great thing is that no matter how much he capitulates, Republicans will immediately scream that the borders are wide open.
He could be invading Mexico and shooting anything that moves and Republicans wouldn’t accept it as enough.
Partly true. So do nothing and accept that a majority of independents and even a sizable chunk of Democrats have concern over the (admittedly inflated) “border issue”?
No matter what Biden does, Republicans will ignore it and scream “open borders” anyway.
He gains nothing from this but the sheer joy Democrats experience when they throw vulnerable minorities under the bus.
Of course Republicans will. We write them off.
But we’re talking about swing voters and independents, and even some Democrats who have this as a top issue.
You lose those, you lose the election, and now life gets very bad for immigrants and minorities for years to come.
We do? Because it sure looks like we’re appeasing them.
They know better and choose to accept Republican bullshit already. They’re gonna keep accepting Republican bullshit.
And when this round of appeasements fails to work, the same rhetoric will persist and continue to work. And we’ll keep hearing that we need to treat them worse and worse to appease people for whom treating them worse is the only goal.
I mean, we’re currently seeing exactly how much Biden thinks of poor brown people.
Spoiler alert it’s not very much, it might even be a negative amount.
“Just a few hundreds more people in concentration camps and thousands more deported, and we can finally stop the Republicans from imprisoning and deporting immigrants and refugees!”
Democrats having a normal one about human rights, eh?
Edit: This may be a good place to remind everyone that the people we’re de facto targeting with these policies are people with indigenous roots. This can and should be interpreted through the lens of colonialism and our ongoing genocide against Native groups.
Edit 2: Oh boy I cannot believe I have to say this, but these people with indigenous roots are not limited to Mexico and Central America. Does anyone know anything about history here?? My God, I’d assume if one is going to comment that one would at least have the slightest idea what they’re talking about.
you’re the hero we need
What, in the purview of an election year (and risk of putting someone obviously orders-of-magnitude worse for such people), with the right-wing border propaganda resonating with many voters, with GOP border states that don’t actually want to work with Biden, and with a divided Congress, do you want Biden to do?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
To have a solution, you first must have a problem. This isn’t one. It’s only a problem for racists.
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.
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.
Feel free to check my post history and you’ll see when I turned
How many genocide did Trump support and enable again?
Oh I don’t know…
When you say you trust Putin’s word over the consensus of your own intelligence agencies, I’d argue enabling Russia’s genocide against Ukraine is one.
When you buddy up with the North Korean leader, you’re at least endorsing the famine of their people.
When you undermine peace deals with Iran, you undermine regional stability indirectly leading to further deaths both domestically and externally.
… Though let’s not forget that neither the UN nor ICJ has formally ruled on genocide charges.
And sure, let’s just pretend you’re not oversimplifying the situation in order to obviously wedge-drive all the while pretending Trump is some leader of global peace LOL.
So how many weapons did we send to ACTIVELY engage in genocide?
Trump was a fucking horrible person but he was way too fucking inept of a moron to pull off anything big.
Biden fucking tricked us all into thinking he was a fucking good guy.
Hell he tricked me pretty good.
What a fucking child.
Yeah I admit I chuckled at this.
I got major, “Don’t speak to me or my son ever again!” vibes lol.
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!”
Removed by mod
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!”
Heard, and that’s fair.
Removed by mod
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!”
Most of these people are not indigenous through coming from way, farther down south, and Central America and moving their way up through Mexico because of how bad it is where they’re from.
If you are going to do it do it right and tell everyone the w whole story
Because the both answer to the same corporate overlords