President Joe Biden said Thursday that he doesn’t believe border walls work, even as his administration said it will waive 26 laws to build additional border barriers in the Rio Grande Valley amid heightened political pressure over migration.

According to a notice posted to the Federal Register Wednesday, construction of the wall will be paid for using already appropriated funds earmarked specifically for physical border barriers. The administration was under a deadline to use them or lose them. But the move comes at a time when a new surge of migrants is straining federal and local resources and placing heavy political pressure on the Biden administration to address a sprawling crisis, and the notice cited “high illegal entry.”

Biden – who, as a candidate, vowed that there will “not be another foot” of border wall constructed on his watch – defended the decision to reporters Thursday, saying that he tried to get the money appropriated for other purposes but was unsuccessful.

“I’ll answer one question on the border wall: The border wall – the money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate it, to redirect that money. They didn’t, they wouldn’t.

And in the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can’t stop that,” Biden told reporters in the Oval Office.

Asked whether he believes the border wall works, Biden answered, “No.”

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    "he" isn't using it. Border patrol is. I'm unsure if he can walk in and say they can't spend their budget, but I'm pretty sure the president don't hold budgetary power.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Last I checked, the border patrol is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by the Executive Branch.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        So your idea is for the president to order the head of DHS to break the law. #lawandorder

        "“We had no choice,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Thursday during a press conference in Mexico. “It was mandated by law. We requested that Congress rescind the direction. It did not do so. We, of course, must follow the law. Our policy remains as it was since day one. We are opposed to the construction of the wall.”"

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-claims-choice-build-trumps-border-wall/story?id=103757017#:~:text=The proposed barrier looks different from Trump's construction.&text=President Joe Biden on Thursday,work to stop illegal immigration.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Image still claiming "just following orders" as an acceptable defence. Then imagine defending its use… 🤦‍♀️

          • Instigate@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s a laudable position, and very easy to espouse if you’ve never been the one in the position who has to put themselves in harm’s way to do good.

            As a government employee I’ve often thought about whistleblowing issues that arise during my work, but if I lose my job and am blacklisted from government work then I’ll likely not be employed for a long time, meaning I’ll no longer be able to financially support my disabled mother and her quality of life will drastically reduce - she may even suffer early death without the services she needs that I pay for. These issues are rarely as simple as you’re portraying it to be.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Make as many excuses for yourself as you like, if your avoiding to whistleblow costs lives, or worse, you blindly "following orders" kills someone or contributes to their death, you become complicit, no matter how many dependants you have, or how uncomfortable the reality makes you.

              If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor"

              You want to talk about being in a "position"? Well I'm not going to doxx myself for your benefit (lets just say I've been in plenty such position, and have flat out refused plenty of immoral orders) but speaking of grandparents, I would have suggested you said this enabling bullshit to mine, who survived the holocaust - surely some of those Nazis also had a disabled dependant at home too (if they were able to hide them from Aktion T4 - would you follow those orders too? Or since that almost directly impacts you, you wouldn't? Funny how that works…), and kids, and they needed the money, and they just need to survive so it's ok to harm others, who, what - don't?

              You not wanting to admit to yourself that you prioritise your own comfort over the lives of others, doesn't change that reality.

              And believe me - you'd get significantly more support and solidarity from a community you defended, than one you selfishly betrayed. Loosing your job to whistleblowing wouldn't leave you as destitute as you like to tell yourself it would, but it sure does ease that tiny little conscience eh…

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            You are comparing the killing of millions with unnecessary government spending.

            It's interesting to see how much you value money.