The text of the bipartisan border security bill has been released. Here's the money part:
- $20 billion for border security
- $60 billion for Ukraine
- $14 billion for Israel
- $10 billion for humanitarian aid to Gaza
- $5 billion for Taiwan
Here's my best quick take on the specific border provisions of the bill
- $3.2 billion to expand the capacity of detention centers.
- $2.5 billion for increased deportation flights.
- $400 million for additional asylum judges. This is an increase of a little more than a third.¹
- More money for the Border Patrol.
- Adds limited new restrictions on the use of parole at the border.
- Speeds up asylum hearings with the goal of completing them in six months for individuals and three months for families.
- "Shuts down" the border if crossings exceed 5,000 per day.² What this means: Those who cross the border illegally are either immediately deported or, for asylum seekers, given a summary credible fear examination that can't be appealed in court. However, asylum seekers would still be allowed to make normal legal appointments at ports of entry.
- Raises the credible fear standard to make it harder to seek asylum.
- Provides work permits for asylum seekers who are released into the country while awaiting court dates. This is designed to prevent asylum seekers from becoming charges on the welfare system.
- Increases the level of skilled legal immigration.
- No codification of DREAM.
- No path to citizenship.³
Even if this bill doesn't provide everything that immigration hawks want, it's hard to see why they'd shoot it down. It gives them a lot of what they want and requires only a few minuscule things in return (work permits, legal immigration increases). Hell, it even includes half a billion dollars for the border wall. Politics aside, it's practically a complete surrender by lefties.
¹This is a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The FY23/24 budgets for EOIR amounted to $860 million, of which $400 million was for personnel costs. The border bill provides an additional $404 million for "judge teams" through September 2026. That's about $160 million per year, a 40% increase. The bill also allocates $36 million to EOIR for legal counsel for asylum seekers.
²This has been the case for the entire past year. In December, border encounters averaged 10,000 per day.
³There's an exception that provides a path to permanent residency for Afghan immigrants who entered the country after July 2021. Most of these are people who worked with the US during our occupation of Afghanistan.
The question is, will House Republicans pass a bill that provides aid to Ukraine in exchange for the increased immigration restrictions? I suspect the answer is no. Trump clearly does not want us to support Ukraine and Republicans either agree or don't dare defy him. For that matter, will House Republicans pass an immigration bill if it doesn't provide aid to Ukraine? I suspect the answer to that is no as well.
"Trump clearly does not want us to support Ukraine"
Because he's resentful that Zelenskyy didn't play ball in 2019, and he's doing what Putin wants.
I continue to believe Putin must have kompromat on Trump— would guess involving money-laundering and financial improprieties (Miami and NYC condos are reportedly favored by Russian organized crime). Yes, Trump likes dictators, but his complete and abject obeissance vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin doesn't make sense otherwise,
"Yes, Trump likes dictators, but his complete and abject obeissance vis-a-vis Vladimir Putin doesn't make sense otherwise,"
It does.
Trump doesn't just like doctators. He ragards dictators and "dictatoring" (i.e. suppressing populations) as the ultimate "good". That what he means when he is talking about "being strong".
Putin has two large additional points:
1) He is white-skin (as opposed to Kim, Xi, etc.).
2) He started with a almost-deomcracy and took control over it, rather than inheriting an autocracy.
So altogether, for Trump, Putin is really the best, most adorable person on the planet (I mean, obviously, distant second after Trump himself).
"We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." - Donald Trump Jr., 2008.
"We have all the funding we need out of Russia." - Eric Trump, 2013.
Doesn't explaim the love affair with Kim, or the fact that he complimented China about shooting people in Tiananmen Square already in 1990.
He admires "strength" (i.e. suppressing the population), and that is the main driver behind his actions.
I think everyone realizes Trump expresses admiration for dictators out of envy. But with respect, you're missing the obvious: as Five Parrots notes above, the financial ties between Russian hot money and Trump are significant. Also, he has nothing like a true "love affair" with Kim compared to his relationship to Putin—a man for whom Trump has not only expressed admiration, but has taken considerable political risks. Also, Trump's admiration of dictators hasn't stopped him from verbally thrashing the Chinese dictatorship in recent times. Or the Iranian Mullahs.
Occam's razor: Putin's got the goods on him.
"Occam's razor: Putin's got the goods on him."
No, Occam's razor would favor an even simpler explanation: Trump is just a dummy who likes Putin, and Putin&Co. are eager to take advantage of that.
Which I tend to think makes more sense than the Kremlin extorting Trump--why bother with extortion? All Putin needed to do was just find and cultivate a dummy like Trump (who was already actively pushing all sorts of anti-American nonsense), help push a microphone into his hand, and then flatter the gullible dolt into the direction you want him to go?
Occam's razor would favor an even simpler explanation: Trump is just a dummy who likes Putin, and Putin&Co. are eager to take advantage of that
We know he valorizes dictatorships, but, as has been pointed out, his relationship with other dictators isn't anywhere near as robust, warm and as important as the one he has with the the former KGB operative now running the country that has, by all accounts, put millions of dollars in his pocket.
His desire to carry Putin's water—especially with respect to Ukraine—isn't entirely rational without a "Putin has leverage" angle. Indeed, we know from polling that this is one issue about which a nontrivial number of Republicans disagree with Trump on (and also about the only issue I can think of where fairly significant numbers of Republicans on the Hill are willing to buck him on). Why is helping Putin win his war so important to Trump, to the point of obsession?
...makes more sense than the Kremlin extorting Trump--why bother with extortion?
I'm not suggesting Vlad texts him daily with threats. But serious money laundering charges could put Trump behind bars. I believe there's a strong likelihood there's a tacit agreement between these two men: Trump supports Putin; Putin lets sleeping dogs lie. And IIRC there's documentation that the young Trump was targeted by Russian intels decades ago; they calculated—correctly, as it turns out—he might one day prove valuable.
"But serious money laundering charges could put Trump behind bars."
So could stealing top secret documents and commiting election fraud. I don't think Trump has enough of a rational sense of consequences for any sort of
Further, I seriously doubt that any US court or law enforcement agency would put much stock in any evidence of untoward financial activities provided by the _Russian_ government, of all places.
"There's documentation that the young Trump was targeted by Russian intels decades ago"
That's more consistent with what I'm saying: Russian ratfuckery in the form of "let's wind this moron up and put a megaphone in his hand" rather than "kompromat."
I am extremely curious who told Trump to rough up the Prime Minister of Montenegro at the NATO summit in 2017. That is such a weird one because Trump surely has no idea what or where Montegro is or who the prime minister is. Putin hates him and his little country, that's what you need to know. But who coached Trump to do this? Who told him this is what Putin wanted? Who showed him a pic of the PM so Trump would know who he was? If I had to guess, I'd guess that Trump is smart enough to outsource this to someone in the family (to have more assurance of loyalty in keeping it secret), like Don Jr. or possibly Eric.
"Even if this bill doesn't provide everything that immigration hawks want, it's hard to see why they'd shoot it down."
Oh Kevin, did you type that with a straight face? They'll shoot it down because they want to use immigration as a club to beat Joe Biden with in the election campaign. The end.
Bob Somerby — Please moderate your blog comments. Trolls are out of control making discussion impossible.
Doesn't include a signed confession from Hunter Biden so this is obviously abject surrender.
Where's the bipartisanship?
+1
As many economists have noted, including CBPP and liberal outlets, it doesn't matter if they're skilled or unskilled -- they all boost the economy. Focusing on skilled labor limits our ability to repatriate manufacturing which, regardless of who is employed, boosts entire towns and districts.
Any aid for Gaza should include a requirement that the distributing parties guarantee that they do not cooperate or communicate with Hamas in any way and that no aid go to Hamas or any Hamas member.
If Hamas stands in the way of that, then no aid.
Let's not forget - Hamas murdered plenty of Americans on Oct 7 and is still holding American hostages. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4327590-10-american-hostages-remain-in-gaza-us-says/
Blood debts must be paid. The Biden administration has done nothing to collect.
Israel doesn't need any "aid." Much less 3-4 x as much as it always gets per year.
I'm talking about aid for Gaza. That's money that needs to be very carefully managed so none of it goes to those who killed Americans on October 7 and are still holding Americans hostage.
Israel, of course, does need aid. Most immediately they need weapons, especially precision bombs and missiles so they can limit civilian casualties. In addition, wars are expensive and the evacuations of border communities near Gaza and Lebanon is very disruptive economically.
"so they can limit civilian casualties"
lol
they have no interest in this.
we have 4 months of evidence now
If Israel was not trying to limit civilian casualties then given the amount of destruction, easily 10 times as many Gazans would be dead.
This is not a good thing. 25,000 dead Palestinians is simply unacceptable.
Why? We killed far more Germans and Japanese in WWII and almost no one considered it unacceptable.
We also killed far more Iraqis and Afghans and most Americans has no problem.
“ Blood debts must be paid. ”
Sure. Then Israel should be required to hand over West Bank Israeli settlers who have assaulted and killed innocent Palestinians and Christians who hold u.s. citizenship. (Some of the settler thugs also have u.s. citizenship. We really do need to tighten our citizenship rules. Right?)
I have not seen any USG claims that Israel has refused to prosecute perpetrators of any unlawful killings of Americans.
25,000 dead civilians in gaza with the help of US bombs not enough for you?
we are apparently giving israel $14B more in weapons for more of that.
Every innocent civilian dead or injured is a tragedy. Every Hamas member or other terrorist dead is a victory. We need a lot more Hamas members and other terrorists dead dead.
Compare with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. plenty of innocent civilians died. That was the price of victory.
"Compare with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. plenty of innocent civilians died. That was the price of victory."
Yes, but ultimately the Germans and the Japanese lost, despite all the horrible killing of civilians they did, so maybe Israel shouldn't be following their examples.
I think you missed the point. We killed far more innocent Japanese and Germans.
Or are you claiming there were no innocent Germans or Japanese?
I think that is wrong (ace it is definitely wrong as a matter of international law) but if so then why do you think there are innocent Gazans?
"Compare with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. plenty of innocent civilians died. That was the price of victory."
Not after the war was over in 1945. Israel conquered the Gaza strip in 1967 making Israel responsible for conditions there. They have discharged their responsibility poorly which is why conditions there are so bad today. As opposed to conditions in Japan or Germany 50 years after the end of WWII.
I am wondering whose idea it was to put in this money (and its a lot) for humanitarian aid to Gaza. Maybe a few Dems are interested in that, but I don't think that has any support on the GOP side and not all Dems are for it either.
And MF is right; that money (if it happens) damn well better not get into the pockets of those Hamas MFs.
Every border-related item in this bill undercuts, repudiates, contradicts, and mocks the current Mayorkas impeachment and the eventual Biden impeachment-- the one they intend to drop in about May or June so they can campaign on it, and which will be the House's signature achievement of Johnson's speakership.
*Of course* Johnson and trump will do everything they can to keep it from getting to a vote.
We'll have to see whether Johnson can keep his resolve through repeated frequent meetings and calls where he's the only one among a gaggle of top-level figures saying no, and faced with begging and pleading from his vulnerable members, and with a serious move for a discharge petition, etc, with his backbone stiffened only by threats from the orange Jesus and his followers. Could be he'll cave after Super Tuesday, but hardly a sure bet. Immense pressures on this guy whose previous high point in public life was skating away unscathed from a sham law school that collapsed under him.
Will the Ukraine funding and Trumps 'announcment' that he doesnt want this bill to pass trick the Democrats into supporting bad legislation?
And will the GOP refuse to take a win and still manage to blow it?
Stay tuned next weeks for the exciting conclusion of We Are All Idiots!
"Politics aside, it's practically a complete surrender by lefties."
But it doesn't include immediate resignation of all Democratic office holders or an admission that the 2020 election was "rigged and stollen." So, no deal.
So this "shut down the border!!!!" carp is ... some kind of delusional hyperbole? That in no sense of the words actually "shuts down" just the border with Mexico, let alone Canada.
"Shut down the border" and "closed borders" implies NOTHING passes, neither immigrants, asylum seekers, tourists, trucks and railcars of goods, cattle -- nothing. STDB is clearly just another meaningless slogan to fool the rubes. Right?
“…. it's practically a complete surrender by lefties.“
Yeah, but this mess is what the voters apparently want. If they didn’t want this, we wouldn’t have so many supporting it. Time to pull out the Mencken.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Yes. About 30 days after illegal immigration is halted, real Americans will start bitching again about the price of everything. All those shit jobs that pay crap still need doing to support the comfortable lifestyle Americans enjoy…
"start" => "return to"
It's still several months before crops start rotting in the fields due to nobody willing to pick them for sub-starvation wages, so Americans may remain in blissful ignorance until ... hey! closer to the election!
Time to watch "A Day without Mexicans."
"Politics aside..."
Bingo and thus, no deal
👍👍👍
This is how it works with Republicans. You work with them and compromise and give in to their demands and hammer out a deal. Then they say it’s awful and refuse to support it. If you have enough votes in both houses it passes. If so Republicans say how awful the bill was and how it needs to be repealed. Meanwhile, as the provisions of the bill are enacted and work well and are popular they claim credit. If any portion doesn’t work perfectly they get to say “see, told ya so”.
Republicans are all about winning elections, not governing. Is this news to anyone on the left, still?
It's easy to predict what the R's will do, looking through that lens.
Just to belabor the obvious-- what's fundamentally going on here, when you set aside all the policy details, is a measuring contest between trump and Biden over who really runs the show in Congress. That's why trump said to go ahead and blame him if/when this deal doesn't get passed. It would show he's the real boss (or in more natural terms for him, capo di tutti capi).
Unlike most behind-the-scenes powers, he not only doesn't mind being exposed as the manipulator, he wants it that way.
"he not only doesn't mind being exposed as the manipulator, he wants it that way"
Yeah, but he isn't really calling the shots, he's just messing things up. Even the weakest man can still break things, and that's all he's doing.
True, except that as Paul Muad-Dib says at a crucial point in Dune, "he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
And a lot of people in this country say they think everything needs to be broken.
True, but the point of those books is that Muad'dib didn't actually control much of anything.
And, I'd hazard that it's important to distinguish between people who credibly threaten to break something in order to achieve something and those who, upon breaking things, we assume must be powerful because they achieved their apparent objective of breaking things and nobody could stop them.
Put another way: if somebody came into an office, pushed over the copier, peed on the floor, and then ran out the fire escape, we wouldn't all stroke our chins and say "Wow, that guy was unstoppable--he's really tapped into to something and showed all us office workers who's _really_ in charge!"; we'd instead correctly assume that the nutter wasn't executing some masterful plan because they were just an asshole being an asshole.
Trump is the same, just bigger.
The bill does not seem to offer anything to the pro immigration side but the “anti immigration” provisions do seem fine. Basically, we need to increase the immigration infrastructure and it seems that that’s what this bill does. One cannot say they have a problem with immigration and then say they are not going anything about it (but of course they will). It is a shame they couldn’t include anything for the dreamers which only means electing a Democratic president becomes even more important.
No path to citizenship
Do what you gotta do, I guess, to get things done, even including utterly horrible compromises like "no path to citizenship." But boy is that an repulsive provision.
In the unlikely chance this bill somehow gets out of the Senate, is passed by the House, and is signed by the president, I really hope some future Congress abrogates that clause.
Nothing is more anti-American than saying to an endangered human being who turned to us for asylum, was granted asylum, obtained residency, built a life, paid taxes, and raised American citizens: "Sorry, we'll never allow you to vote. We'll never allow you to become an American."
What do you mean "it's hard to see why they'd shoot it down"?
They've told us! Chuck Grassley said it most frankly: it would help Joe Biden get re-elected and then they won't make the 2017 tax cuts (for the rich) permanent!
The question is: will the mainstream media drive this point home to voters, so it becomes crystal clear that it's Republicans who are refusing to solve the "migrant crisis"?
I'll take a wild guess: no.
Pingback: Yeah, take the deal, R’s | Zingy Skyway Lunch
Without bad faith…..
Republicans would have no arguments at all