Aid to Ukraine and Israel (and Taiwan) is being held up because Republicans are demanding that the aid be tied to border security changes. As best I can figure out, these are their demands:
- Restart construction of the wall.
- Make asylum harder to get by tightening the standard for "credible fear."
- Give the president power to shut down the asylum system.
- Reinstate the "safe third country" policy that bans asylum for anyone who passes through a safe country on their way to the US.
- Beef up the border patrol and the number of asylum judges.
- Restrict humanitarian paroles that allow the entry of immigrants from certain countries if they have an American sponsor. Presumably this would also restrict things like President Biden's recent grant of temporary legal status to nearly half a million Venezuelans who are already in the country.
How unreasonable are these things? I'd say #3 is absurd overreach, but I'm not sure Senate Republicans are insisting on it. It would probably get tossed out in court anyway. And #4 is problematic too, especially since Mexico wouldn't think highly of it.
As for the others, the wall is a waste of money but we've wasted plenty of money before with no ill effects. The credible fear standard really does need to be better and more tightly defined, even if we can debate exactly how much. More border agents and more asylum judges are a good idea. And the humanitarian parole program isn't very big to start with, so restricting it wouldn't do a lot of damage.
Republicans also want to end "catch and release," but I'm not quite sure how you do this. If someone makes it into the country but isn't yet deportable, what else are we supposed to do? Put them all in huge detention camps? That might well appeal to Republicans, but it's a nonstarter.
Here's a suggestion that's a little bit out there: I wonder how Republicans feel about DREAMers these days? What would happen if Biden agreed to most of their immigration demands in exchange for legislative approval of the DREAM Act? Would they be open? My sense has always been that although many Republicans oppose DREAM, most of them don't oppose it very much. It's for kids, after all.
Anyway, just a thought. But it strikes me that Biden could agree to 4½ Republican demands without too much trouble, and maybe get DREAM as part of the deal. Unless you just flat out object to any restrictions on illegal immigration, what's the harm?
You forgot a funding mechanism. How are "we" going to pay for all this? Tax cuts for the GOP donor class?
You forgot E-Verify for each and every job. With enhanced funding for the IRS, SSA and Dept. of Labor to cross check all documentation to root out fraudulent documents.
use the texas approach; how about a $10k bounty for any citizen that identifies an illegal worker? (paid by the employer of course)
There are scams everywhere, but don't worry—everyone is a trustworthy and bs02 successful website. Thousands of people are profiting handsomely from it. For additional details, click the link. Free signup and information are sb02 provided; no need to pay money right away................................ https://careersrevenue123.blogspot.com/
dead or alive?
Can't have more funding for the IRS. In fact, they require more incarceration, and more border patrol agents, with no additional funding.
They could agree to all of it and Lucy will just pull the ball away. These are Republicans we are talking about. What would they ever do without a border "crises". That said Dems really should take this issue away and do things that go further than the base wants. If we believe in global warming we better start believing that the border will be the gift that gives Republicans control.
"They could agree to all of it and Lucy will just pull the ball away."
In this case there isn't a reason not to agree, because you are not ending with worse situation than the current one.
And it is easier to blame Republicans for it.
Climate change is the reason that immigration will be an even more important issue in decades to come. Parts of the world are becoming unsustainable and global migration of masses of people is destined to happen. The US is, and will be, where people want to be. It's not a problem per se. It will be a challenge to manage but it is the best opportunity for this country to continue to lead the world. Take in the huddled masses, grow the population, and grow the economy. I think building a wall is the absolute opposite of what we should do. Didn't we all laugh when Trump proposed it in 2016? Why would Dems be ready to concede the issue right now.
If we must have a wall, we should move it. Built it between the US and Texas. Women and children will be free to enter the 49 states. Men who want to come must cede their guns and provide proof of vasectomy. Texans can take their two US senators and 40 electoral votes and shove it.
The immigration we will see due to climate change is not a logistical or a resource problem - it is a political problem. Immigration at the current levels and the future increased levels will lead directly to a fascists take over if the current left policies are not addressed. America would implode politically if we accepted as many refugees as Germany did over the last 10 years. They will tear that statue of the nice lady down and melt down the scroll she is holding to make bullets.
The sad thing is that the all of these present adult illegal immigrants are necessary for our economy. Given that we reached full employment back in 2019, the only way we've had all time record job growth under Biden is because there are illegals available to fill the jobs.
If we don't do what the fascists want now, the fascists will take over and do it then. Got it.
"They could agree to all of it and Lucy will just pull the ball away."
That's exactly what's going to happen. The whole border issue is so much bullshit. The GOP is simply using it as an excuse to abandon Ukraine. That's all this is. You don't think Biden wouldn't agree to all these points to get what he wanted politically? Of course he would and he also knows it would diffuse the issue in 2024. He's not stupid. This has nothing to do with Biden. It has everything to do with appeaser Republicans abandoning Ukraine and keeping the border as an issue in 2024. It's utterly Lucy with the football.
It should also be pointed a lot of Dems would vote against any such "deal" especially if it included aid to Israel with no strings attached. Again, good luck finding a majority in both Houses.
Call me crazy but I am convinced right-wing influencers working behind the scenes are the ones who have created the border "crises" by encouraging immigration in such numbers as to overwhelm the system, create a crisis and then blame Biden for it. And the reason I says this is because it has worked out this way to some extent, it's almost perfect in its intended effects, which has me suspicious. But in any case, so long as the U.S. is rich and opportunity much easier to come by than the rest of the world, we will have large number of immigrants and no amount of border controls will stop this. Human beings are human beings and they figure out ways around things. Always have, always will and pretty much always succeed
1. Senate Republicans get Biden to support package that progressives will never agree to.
2. House Republicans refuse even to table the bill, citing their own extreme one they already passed as their minimum position.
3. More divisions in Democratic Party, even less enthusiasm for Biden second term. (Republican) mission accomplished!
So far, Joe has seen through these pretty transparent attempts to drive wedges in his own party. Hopefully he'll do the same this time.
Exactly
Republicans Do Not Keep Their Word
Look at the budget agreement
Agree to it all, then just ignore the agreement. Isn’t that how it works now?
agreed lol
Excellent proposal! When Mitch or Mikey complain, just say "Debt ceiling agreement."
This is a tough needle to thread, not so much because the demands KD lists here are all complete non-starters, but because Republicans (particularly in the House) are completely untrustworthy and will not negotiate in good faith. Biden could immediately agree to all of it, and they'd just balk and move the goalposts and say it wasn't enough.
What they really want is a complete end to immigration from the global south and summary deportation of anyone with a skin shade darker than Stephen Miller's.
"What they really want is a complete end to immigration.."
They just pretend.
Old Republicans always wanted immigration for cheap work.
Trump doesn't care at all about immigration, and it is just a campaign issue for him.
That may have once been the case, but the Great Replacement Theory has now completely crowded out any concerns by ranchers or meatpackers or building contractors that they need cheap immigrant labor. And those farmers and multinational meatpackers seem pretty content to let the rampant xenophobia completely fuck them over. What are they going to do? Vote Democrat? Har! (And Republicans know this)
Agree that the "base" genuinely wants to abolish immigration of non-whites.
I was talking about the politicians, e.g. senators and House members and their clienst (big "donors").
Nope. "What they really want" is a steady flow of "caravans" and "illegals" until the end of time. It's about the only "policy" issue they have left to campaign on. Witnessing Democratic infighting over immigration must have them hugging themselves with glee. No way they'll agree to a bipartisan settlement of the matter.
Its my impression the Republicans, for political reasons, don't want to agree to anything.
- Given Bidens overall polling and struggles with polling on the border, the Republicans would love to talk about 'illegal' immigration all the time. Why solve this problem?
- Funding for Ukraine is disfavored by many Republican politicians (note not all Republicans): further, not providing Ukraine funding, from a GOP point of view, makes Biden look weak internationally and domestically...another political win.
- Funding for Israel is a great political issue for the GOP. This topic splits the Democrat base and unifies Republicans. Further, claiming that Biden is 'weak' on Israel is already a Trump campaign line.
- Finally, passing ANYTHING major is likely a political win for Biden.
Bottom line, I think the political incentives are for the GOP to ask for the world, and not compromise/agree to anything.
"Its my impression the Republicans, for political reasons, don't actually want to agree to anything."
Assuming this is true, the best approach would be to agree to their current demands, and when they refuse to take it, you can blame for it.
Yehouda - interesting insight. Two initial thoughts:
- The GOP, because the devil is in the detail, would draft a REALLY impossible bill with lots of poison pill elements.
- Few Democrats would want to be on record voting for this stuff.
But who knows!
While progressives scream they've been betrayed by the White House (again).
That is a point that needs consideration, too.
The problem is that most of the people here don't consider these questions (i.e. effects on elections) at all, even though the results of the next elections will be the largest factor affecting all issues (including this one) in the US.
One more thing. Politically, you wonder how the GOP feels about DREAMERS? I think the GOP position is pretty close to, deport them all.
Texas Republicans are persecuting a woman with a tragic pregnancy, and her family, friends, doctor …
if the humanitarian parole applies to half a million Venezuelans in the country, how can you say it's not very big and modifying it wouldn't do a lot of damage. Half a million people is a lot!
"Half a million people is a lot!"
In a country of 332 million? Not really (although I'll admit, it starts to get close).
Every single one of those is bad policy, with the possible exception of "more asylum judges" which is of course paired with "send more scum to the border to murder migrants."
More to the point, it is always a bad agree to agree to permanent and significant changes to the law in exchange for short-term funding. The only way this should even remotely be under consideration is if its basically a full blank check for Ukraine.
Isn't the bigger point that the Republicans are constantly keeping legislation on one issue hostage to other issues, even after making agreements? If you give in to terrorists, you encourage terrorism.
The analogy to terrorists is not really good, because at the moment the question of what happens in the next elections still matters. So it is important to take stands that convince voters, specially the ones in the middle, even if these stands don't actually get you anything.
This is one of Kevin's ridiculous, but frequent, preening "Gee, ain't I a contrarian" posts. There are only three things wrong with it:
1. Kevin to the contrary, these demands are all terrible and all non-starters with Congressional Democrats and Biden.
2. No, Biden can' strike a deal with Republicans on immigration because, again Kevin to the contrary, Democrats have already tried to strike a deal on these issues with Republicans and offered many concessions, but Republicans refuse to budge from any these demands and have stated in so many words that no negotiation is possible on any of these demands.
3. As already pointed out by multiple posters, if Democrats actually unconditionally surrendered and accepted all these hostage demands, they'd just get a new ransom demand upping the ante. Total opposition to a penny more in Ukraine aid is rapidly becoming Republican/MAGA dogma at a pace that is breathtaking even to me.
Regarding “the wall”, isn’t one of the problems with it is that it’s an environmental disaster? And didn’t the Hamas invasion of Israel teach us that walls are useless?
With regard to Ukraine, it’s my opinion that Republicans want Putin to win. Even if they allow some short term funding it will disappear if Trump is “elected”. The failure of the Ukraine counteroffensive was a disaster.
"..Republicans want Putin to win."
It is not Republicans, it is Trump. The Republicans just follow his orders on this issue.
Pre-Trump, I was shocked by the large number of Republicans who indicated admiration for Putin. Putin’s brand of authoritarianism is very attractive to Republicans.
At the national level it wasn't visible.
Sure it was. It started with Obama. Sarah Palin openly admired Putin while mocking Obama:
"People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil," Sarah Palin, former Republican vice-presidential candidate, told another popular host, Sean Hannity.
"They look at our president as one who wears mum jeans and equivocates and bloviates."
As for "The Wall" we can call it a wall but actually make it about increasing various forms of physical barriers at the border. Our border security policy includes a combination of physical and other sorts of barriers and some more funding for that is not a bad thing.
"The Wall" is purely symbolic. What the Trumpers (and rest of GOP) want is a big, masculine barrier that clearly says "We're full. Go away".
The fact that most illegal immigration comes through the airports is not even acknowledged. What they want is a gated community to keep the riff-raff out. Notice how NOBODY is mentioning the number of immigrants who come legally and overstay their Visa's? That's because the danger is those darker skinned poor people teeming across the border and taking what's ours. The vision they have in their heads is the family running across the border with no skills, not the ones landing at LAX. It's more about poor immigrants (ewww, ick) than someone who can afford a plane ticket.
The Ukrainian counter-offensive did not fail; it just didn't completely succeed. Note that Ukrainian forces have several bridgeheads on the Russian side of the Dnipro, positioning them well for the next lunge.
Yes. Also, arguably, the counter-offensive was a huge success. If the goal is to keep Russian resources pinned down in Southern Ukraine, it was a great success.
Tempting to think that the GOP would never do anything to actually ameliorate unauthorized immigration and deprive themselves of a valuable issue. But they did exactly that on abortion — in fact, they turned it against themselves, because they couldn’t foresee the consequence of litmus-testing every Supreme Court nominee. This is the Stupid Party, after all. They could stumble into a border fix despite themselves.
As for "Restart construction of the wall.", before Trump there were border walls everywhere DHS wanted them. The 'Wall' was Trump's way of standing out among Republicans--"we all hate and fear brown-skinned immigrants, but I hate them so much I'm going to build a wall across the continent to keep them out". The 'Wall' is a political symbol, and agreeing to it is terrible politics.
Any compromise must include Congress approving the DREAM Act.
I'd approve of a deal that gave Republicans most of what they want on the border in exchange for aid to Ukraine, as long as it didn't involve violating treaties or gross human rights abuses. But I don't think that's possible. Kevin just isn't cynical enough about Republicans. Republicans don't want to improve anything about the situation at the southern border, even on their own terms. Republicans don't have many policy goals (it's mainly lower taxes and fewer regulations for the donor class, and getting wimmin barefoot and pregnant for the Evangelical rubes); they have power goals. They like the border situation because they can use it to win elections. If they could make it worse without getting caught or blamed, they would.
This, totally.
"But I don't think that's possible. "
The question is not what Democrats can achieve. The question is what will be helpful to Democrats to convince undecided voters to vote for Democrats.
I start to get the impression that people on this blog don't realize that there are such things as elections.
I get the impression you don’t know the first thing about the actual voters that we have to appeal to win an election. You are basing it on imaginary ones that are as politically informed as your circle of friends.
There’s this tension between being tough on the border, not being too tough, and not caving into the Republicans. For every voter buying what you think will sell, there will be at least one, if not another, that will be “the Democrats agreed to build the wall”, ”increased border patrol”, or “gave everything to those fascist Repubs.” You think you know so much more than others, but your political analysis is puerile to be kind, when it doesn’t even address any of the potential risks. It’s Green Laternism, this one neat hack is political fools gold that so many on the internet fall for time after time. Bless your heart.
The problem is not that other people here don't agree with me. The problem is that they ignore the question of effect on voters completely.
Judges? I think #5 is mistaken.
"Beef up the border patrol and the number of asylum judges."
I can't possibly imagine republicans supporting more asylum judges. I expect democrats trying to increase that being a deal breaker for republicans.
Way more judges and courts, along with maybe making changes so it's more administrative than judicial (I really don't know the parameters, just looking for a way to get to way more judges and courts) seems like the one important thing that should be done. Most asylum claimants apparently get sent back (or disappear instead). Now they spend a couple years integrating into society first, and for some having one or two American citizen kids. It makes no sense.
What horse trading, if any, was necessary to get Lend-Lease approved?
Dems controlled Congress so that wasn't necessary.
But I just looked up the vote, and, surprise ... Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against. Nothing changes.
That wasn't the same Republican party.
They still mostly sucked.
When we talk about Republicans we need to remember that there are disparate interests within the R Party. The R rank and file voters mostly want to slam the border shut. But R leadership - by which I mean not elected officials, but wealthy donors - loves the status quo on immigration, because it gives them a threefer:
1) They get a large pool of undocumented laborers who can be paid diddly and treated abominably because they have no recourse;
2) They get to point at that same pool of undocumented laborer to rile up the R base: "those brown-skinned illegals are taking your jobs!"; and
3) They get to point at chaos at the border during election season and say "Biden has failed to control the border."
If Congress ever passed effective immigration reform then R leadership would lose all of these advantages.
"It's for kids, after all."
1. Practically all the DREAMers are adults now. Obama proposed this in, like what, 2012? That was 11+ years ago, so the youngest kids born back then are at least 11 today. And if Republicans didn't care enough about DREAMers to do something about them when they controlled all of Washington between 2017-18, then they certainly aren't going to care about doing something about them now.
2. Even if 100% of DREAMers were still kids, there is absolutely no evidence that elected Republicans care about any kids on the face of the earth except perhaps the ones they personally know. They don't care about the kids being shot in schools, not even the white, Christian, middle class or American citizen ones. They don't care about the infants being born without working organs or with their organs on the outside or some other medical issue that will cause them to die painfully within weeks, days, hours, minutes after birth. They don't care about the kids not receiving subsidized lunches during the pandemic, or the families who need Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies etc. to feed, shelter and take care of their children. They don't care that children were taken at the border from their families, locked in cages and then given to other families to raise with no records being kept to allow for them to ever be reunited with their original families. And as for Republican voters, none of the above is a dealbreaker for their continued voting in the GOP. THERE IS LITERALLY ZERO EVIDENCE FROM THIS CENTURY THAT REPUBLICANS CARE ABOUT CHILDREN AT ALL.
Kevin really needs to stop giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt.
"What would happen if Biden agreed to most of their immigration demands in exchange for legislative approval of the DREAM Act?"
You're joking right? RIGHT?????? Republicans will never agree to it. Come on kevin, fool you once, shame on republicans, fool you 10000 times.....
A caricaturist drawing Kevin should just draw a picture of Charlie Brown. Both of them are always up for kicking the football Lucy/GOP holds.
It’s like all the concessions made on the affordable care act. How many Republicans voted for it?
Republicans have been pretty clear that they aren't open to including DACA in the current bill. For example, Senator Thom Tillis said, “You come to me and tell me we had to have DACA and path to citizenship in this bill, it would be the last discussion you have with me.” Tillis supports everything in the current bill (increased funding for border security, aid to Isreal, and aid to Ukraine), but opposes the bill as long as it doesn't include changes to immigration law. If he won't support a bill that only includes provisions he supports, it's not likely that he could be persuaded to support a bill that included provisions he opposed.
Pissing off a fascist sounds like a pretty good reason for putting DACA on the negotiating table.
For sure, boost the number of asylum judges. Can't think of a better time to boost asylum judges than with a Democrat in the White House, amirite?
But I think the wall remains a dumb idea. People cut it everywhere they can, and the wall blocks natural migration paths and patterns.
You know how in Canada they've built natural overpasses for animals to migrate through, instead of wandering through freeway traffic? The wall does the opposite.
One of the reasons why America's fertility rate hasn't declined as fast as other post-industrial societies is quite simple: The continued influx of immigrants. Despite what my brethren believe, the US is vast and can accommodate far more than what we currently have.
I say play hardball.
If Republican senators who benefit the most from increased military spending in their states are demanding quid pro quo on disparate policies, challenge them with ads in their states. Point out how their senator(s) are blocking huge spending boosts to their states.
It isn’t simply a question of total physical space.
I didn't limit the vastness of America to spatial area, though!
I've never really understood #4, honestly. Seems strange that asylum would be granted when someone flees a country fearing for their life, and then crosses through several imperfect but safer countries on their way to the US... the extended trip seems more economic than fear-based.
The asylum system allows seekers to apply for a temporary work visa and work in the US legally while their case is reviewed -- which currently takes over 4 years.
That's why if you want to solve the border "crisis", your first step should be to hire a ton of judges to cut that wait time to under 6 months. That would discourage those who are coming to the US seeking asylum but are actually doing so for economic reasons.
You're referring to #5 on the list. I was talking about the "safe third country" policy.
They're intertwined.
The reason why conservatives (and labor unions) want the 3rd country scheme is to prevent the influx of immigrants with work visas that may allow them to stay for as long as their case remains unreviewed.
Hence, in reference to your allusion to the extended trip being related more to economics than fear.
I'm putting aside conservative schemes and just asking in general. I read an account of a woman who fled her South American country. She talked about getting a job briefly in a neighboring country, saving up money, and then moving on to the next country, until she eventually got to the US border.
Should that be kosher from an asylum perspective? Shouldn't the first country that she worked in be the one responsible for harboring her under international asylum laws?
The government is already installing a wall. An AI wall.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/12/border-patrol-ai-us-mexico-wall-surveillance-virtual
"The U.S. government is building a "virtual wall" at the southern border by erecting hundreds of high-tech surveillance towers — some of which use artificial intelligence — to detect people in an effort to reduce drug smuggling and sky-high unauthorized migration."
"The U.S. has installed about 300 different types of surveillance towers from the California coast to the tip of Texas, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that monitors civil liberties in the digital world."
I'm pretty sure "sky high" migration would fly over the surveillance towers without them noticing. 😉
https ://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/capac-chair-chu-and-senator-hirono-statement-opposing-gop-proposed-immigration
Apparently, Expedited Removal is also a demand, which Kevin didn't mention...
What would happen is they would reject it. If Biden agreed to all their demands, they would cook up some reason to reject it. This is not a serious offer. It is an attempt to create a campaign issue. If there is a big bipartisan deal to solve the border problems, the GOP's biggest issue goes straight into the crapper. They are not going to allow that so stop taking them seriously.