Senators race to secure border deal with Ukraine aid at stake

[Vambram]

Senators race to secure border deal with Ukraine aid at stake

Republicans and Democrats remain hopeful a deal can be reached, but some issues remain unresolved.

www.newsnationnow.com

WASHINGTON (NewsNation) — As the war in Ukraine enters its 700th day and the U.S. border crisis continues, Senate negotiators continue to labor to win support for a deal on border policy and Ukraine aid. They’ve reported progress, however, a vote on a measure allocating billions of dollars for both issues may still be days away.

Republicans and Democrats remain hopeful a deal can be reached, but some issues remain unresolved.
Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, President Joe Biden and fellow Democrats want to release around $60 billion in aid for troops. However, this week, the Biden administration stated that the U.S. can no longer provide ammunition and some weapons after money dried up in December.

Republicans are seeking significant changes to address the border crisis in exchange for providing aid to Ukraine, including making it harder to claim asylum in the U.S. and reducing the number of migrants allowed to enter for emergency reasons.

This week, both sides stressed the importance of what they want in the final deal.

“Reports suggest that on some days, Ukraine is firing one-quarter to one-half the number of rounds that the Russian military is,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. “That is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe for Kyiv to be a Russian city sometime soon

 

[Laodicean60]

Republicans and Democrats remain hopeful a deal can be reached, but some issues remain unresolved.

If our government had tried to work together on border security 5 years ago Ukraine wouldn't be an issue now. Dysfunctional

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win

The former president is telling Republicans he "doesn't want Biden to have a victory" in 2024, said a source familiar with the bipartisan negotiations.

www.huffpost.com

Republicans don't really care about "secure borders."

 

[Laodicean60]

Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win

The former president is telling Republicans he "doesn't want Biden to have a victory" in 2024, said a source familiar with the bipartisan negotiations.

www.huffpost.com

Republicans don't really care about "secure borders."

I agree, same with amnesty. Ridiculous, do anything you can to make the sitting President look bad. He doesn't want Biden to have any kudos.

 

[The Barbarian]

Republicans don't really care about "secure borders."

The only issue that they have left. Trump needs insecure borders for his campaign. So he's leaning on congressional republicans to keep Biden's request for more enforcement from passing.

 

[Vambram]

The compromise with the Democrats in that border bill actually does very, very little to improve the massive problem of illegal immigration.

 

[SimplyMe]

Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win

The former president is telling Republicans he "doesn't want Biden to have a victory" in 2024, said a source familiar with the bipartisan negotiations.

www.huffpost.com

Republicans don't really care about "secure borders."

Neither side actually appears to. They talk a big game but ultimately don't care. Even with Trump's border wall, we have portions that have blown over in the wind, part that was taken out by a flash flood (something that engineers had warned as to why a border wall would not work in that location), and plenty of areas where the wall has been breached or even cut where they can climb through. And that was from the rather limited amount of wall (only 80 miles of wall where it did not exist previously) that Trump managed to get constructed.

Again, neither side actually tries to completely stop illegals because too many of their large business owning donors want to use illegal labor to drastically cut their costs.

 

[The Barbarian]

The compromise with the Democrats in that border bill actually does very, very little to improve the massive problem of illegal immigration.

Well, let's take a look...​

​

Detention ​

Immigration and Customs Enforcement would get almost $8 billion in emergency funding, rivaling the agency’s regular annual budget of about $9 billion. The emergency funding would include more than $3 billion for increased detention capacity.

Asylum​

The plan would set a goal of speeding up the review of asylum claims, striving to let no cases last more than six months — often by allowing asylum officers to close out a claim rather than going through immigration courts. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would get nearly $4 billion to help shoulder that new workload, including for hiring more than 4,300 asylum officers.

The measure would require asylum seekers to show greater proof to seek refuge in the U.S. and would ensure they are allowed a lawyer if they are facing rapid deportation. All unaccompanied children under 14 years old would also be granted lawyers during removal proceedings, covered by an infusion of $350 million for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Immigrant advocates quickly panned the proposal, with the ACLU arguing that it would “eviscerate” longstanding protections, and the National Immigrant Justice Center stressing that it would make asylum “largely un-obtainable for those who are permitted to request it at ports of entry.”

‘Border shutdown’ ​

The bill would force the Department of Homeland Security to shutter the border if daily illegal crossings top 5,000 migrants on average or 8,500 in a single day. Unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada wouldn’t count toward that total.

The administration could only reopen the border if encounters of illegal crossings drop to 75 percent of the number that initially triggered the closure.

DHS would also have the power to shut down the border if crossings average more than 4,000 a day for a week, and Biden has signaled he would aggressively use that authority.

During a “border shutdown,” many people trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border would be quickly deported. But exceptions would be made for unaccompanied minors and people who meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture rules.

Ports of entry ​

DHS would still consider asylum requests from people crossing at legal ports of entry during those periods of “border shutdown” — just not in between those ports. Officials would have to process at least 1,400 asylum requests per day under those terms.

Local support ​

$1.4 billion would be disbursed to help states and local governments handle the influx of immigrants. In New York alone, Gov. Kathy Hochul earlier this month proposed spending $2.4 billion to provide services to migrants in her annual budget.

Border Patrol ​

Customs and Border Protection would get nearly $7 billion in emergency funding, a massive infusion above its current yearly budget of about $21 billion. That extra funding would include $723 million would cover increased hiring of Border Patrol agents and overtime pay.

The bill would also give DHS more flexibility in hiring Border Patrol agents and create yearly training requirements for non-lethal force, protecting due process and preserving civil and human rights.

Border wall ​

The bill would force the Biden administration to use money already laid out for border barriers on the kind of steel fencing that Trump boasted during his tenure. That “bollard”-style border wall is supposed to be 18 to 30 feet high, with “anti-dig” and “anti-climb” features.

Countering fentanyl ​

Folded into the border security deal is legislation aimed at beefing up anti-money laundering policies and sanctions, known as the Fend Off Fentanyl Act.

The Drug Enforcement Administration would receive more than $23 million to disrupt and disband Mexican cartels trafficking fentanyl across the southern border. And the State Department and USAID would see about $25 million for programs aimed at curbing the flow of the drug into the U.S.

Detention and that border ‘shutdown’: What's really in Biden's bipartisan immigration deal

Breaking down 12 major points in the border deal, including the parameters of a border shutdown, increased visas and work permits for asylum seekers.

www.politico.com

I'm guessing you never actually saw what was in it. Stuff even republicans have been saying they want. One big drawback they have. With the economy doing so well, the border is pretty much all Trump has left to campaign on. Last thing he wants is for that to go away. So if you wonder why we won't be beefing up border enforcement, ask the republicans.

 

[Vambram]

I have read that stuff before. I don't trust Joe or Alejandro to actually enforce it. I don't trust that the Federal district Court in D.C. to be the only court allowed under that bill to adjudicate all lawsuits or challenges to the various parts of that bill.
Some of that bill is good stuff that I can support. However, there's too much stuff in the bill that I shall never support.

 

[BCP1928]

It looks like the Republicans have played this pretty well. Either they get what they want at the border--no asylum for illegal entrants--or they put a stop to our support of Ukraine. These two items are at the top of their bucket list and of the two I think they want the latter more. Plus, if the border stays a mess it gives Trump a winning issue in the fall.

 

[The Barbarian]

It looks like the Republicans have played this pretty well. Either they get what they want at the border--no asylum for illegal entrants--or they put a stop to our support of Ukraine. These two items are at the top of their bucket list and of the two I think they want the latter more. Plus, if the border stays a mess it gives Trump a winning issue in the fall.

But it gives Biden a hammer to hit Trump with. In a debate Trump will start talking what he'd do about the border, and Biden will say "I proposed doing just that in a bill, and you ordered republican congressmen to kill it. You talk a lot, but when it comes to doing something about it, you fold."

 

[The Barbarian]

I have read that stuff before. I don't trust Joe or Alejandro to actually enforce it.

Republicans put requirements into it. Your excuse won't fly. And it's clear why. You see, the economy needs those undocumented workers. And a lot of the guys bankrolling the GOP need them. If you haven't realized by now, that republicans love to scream about immigrant, but never do anything about them, you're a lot more gullible than I think you are.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only issue that they have left. Trump needs insecure borders for his campaign. So he's leaning on congressional republicans to keep Biden's request for more enforcement from passing.

In the interest of objectivity, is there anything attached to Biden's request for more enforcement that can reasonably be seen as either an A) "poison pill"? (meaning, something being injected into the bill that they know the other side would never vote for, being used for the explicit purpose of being able to make the claim "see, they don't really want to solve this issue!"), or B) something that weakens the intent of the bill so much that that it renders it practically useless? (apart from giving one political camp the ability to say "see, we tried to do something, but the other side wouldn't let us"


Poison pill politics is one of the dirtiest forms because most people (unfortunately, even many of the members of congress who actually vote on them) don't actually read the text beyond the "clever sounding" name/acronym of the bill, and instead rely on pundit interpretations of what the bill supposedly said/means.


For instance, if there was a proposed "GOP compromise offer" on gun control, but it came saddled with a bunch of loopholes (and even strengthened gun ownership rights in other areas), and came attached with a bill rider that added abortion restrictions...

And they called it "Saving Americans from Violent Environments - or - SAVE Act"

Would/Should Democrats take that deal? (I'd say no)
...and when they understandably refuse to take that deal, wouldn't it be dishonest if the GOP'ers started saying "A Ha! See, we told you they didn't really care about solving gun violence!"

 

[wing2000]

In the interest of objectivity, is there anything attached to Biden's request for more enforcement that can reasonably be seen as either an A) "poison pill"? (meaning, something being injected into the bill that they know the other side would never vote for, being used for the explicit purpose of being able to make the claim "see, they don't really want to solve this issue!"), or B) something that weakens the intent of the bill so much that that it renders it practically useless? (apart from giving one political camp the ability to say "see, we tried to do something, but the other side wouldn't let us"

If there was a poison pill, I have not seen any Republican articulate what it may be.

 

[stevil]

In the interest of objectivity, is there anything attached to Biden's request for more enforcement that can reasonably be seen as either an A) "poison pill"? (meaning, something being injected into the bill that they know the other side would never vote for, being used for the explicit purpose of being able to make the claim "see, they don't really want to solve this issue!"), or B) something that weakens the intent of the bill so much that that it renders it practically useless? (apart from giving one political camp the ability to say "see, we tried to do something, but the other side wouldn't let us"

Have you been paying attention?

It seems this bill was put together in a bipartisan fashion, and has been nixed by D Trump ordering Republicans not to do anything that would improve the border control under Biden's administration.

Nothing to do with an poison pill or weakness of the bill. All to do with D Trump worried the bill might improve the border and thus weaken his intended presidential campaign where he is going to constantly complain about the state of the border.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If there was a poison pill, I have not seen any Republican articulate what it may be.

Republicans kill border bill in a sign of Trump's strength and McConnell's waning influence

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell encouraged GOP senators to pass an immigration and Ukraine aid deal. Just four of them supported it. In the end, even he voted no.

www.nbcnews.com

Based on this NBC article, it looks like it was heavily intertwined with Ukraine foreign aid funding.

Whether or not it's reasonable for people to be opposed to that is irrelevant when discussing whether or not it's a poison pill.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Have you been paying attention?

It seems this bill was put together in a bipartisan fashion, and has been nixed by D Trump ordering Republicans not to do anything that would improve the border control under Biden's administration.

Nothing to do with an poison pill or weakness of the bill. All to do with D Trump worried the bill might improve the border and thus weaken his intended presidential campaign where he is going to constantly complain about the state of the border.

So if Ukraine funding were nixed from the bill, would congressional and senate democrats still be supporting it?

Also, the House GOP have been pretty clear on why they would see the bill as DOA

'Even worse than we expected': House speaker reacts to bipartisan Senate immigration bill

Speaker Mike Johnson said the Senate bipartisan bill to overhaul the immigration system is dead on arrival if it makes it to the House.

abcnews.go.com

Whether or not you or I would agree with their reasoning (I don't, for the record), it, none the less, represents a poison pill.

 

[wing2000]

Republicans kill border bill in a sign of Trump's strength and McConnell's waning influence

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell encouraged GOP senators to pass an immigration and Ukraine aid deal. Just four of them supported it. In the end, even he voted no.

www.nbcnews.com

Based on this NBC article, it looks like it was heavily intertwined with Ukraine foreign aid funding.

Whether or not it's reasonable for people to be opposed to that is irrelevant when discussing whether or not it's a poison pill.

Did any of the Republican Senators raise their concern with including Ukraine (and Israel) security funding

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did any of the Republican Senators raise their concern with including Ukraine (and Israel) security funding

Yes

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called McConnell’s moves to reach a border and Ukraine deal a “big tactical error.”

“It was a huge mistake. And I think he’s always cared more about giving money to Ukraine than he has about any other issue,” Paul said of his fellow Kentuckian.

When it was reported last month that McConnell was anticipating a vote on a Ukraine aid bill, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, responded: “I anticipate telling McConnell to pound sand.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said he doesn’t blame McConnell for the way the border bill turned out, saying, “On this one, Mitch’s driving force was pretty clear for a long time — was Ukraine.”

“Even leaders have political capital, and he spent a lot of political capital on Ukraine,” Cramer said, adding that he doesn’t think McConnell misread the conference.

Again, not saying I agree with their reasoning, just pointing out that it's a sticking point for the other side.


The example I used before... if the GOP introduced a bill that purported to be reigning in the lax gun laws we have, but it was saddled with anti-abortion restrictions, I'd completely understand why Senate Democrats would shoot it down.

The whole objective of "poison pill politics" is to "put the other side in a no-win situation that hopefully makes them look bad"

 

[stevil]

So if Ukraine funding were nixed from the bill, would congressional and senate democrats still be supporting it?

Are you implying that the Democrats didn't want this bill signed so they added Ukraine funding to make sure that the Republicans couldn't support it?

Are we to ignore the part where Republicans were involved in negotiating this bill?

It seems that in the recent past Republicans shot down proposals to fund Ukraine, saying that they want to tie funding of Ukraine to Border security.

Why are some Republicans opposing more aid for Ukraine?

Waning interest in Ukraine and mounting border concerns give the party a potent political weapon.

www.bbc.com

Republicans' reluctance to help Ukraine without significant concessions was starkly highlighted earlier this week. With just days to go until Congress heads home for its scheduled winter break, Senate Republicans blocked a procedural vote to advance a national security bill that includes $61bn (£48.5bn) for Ukraine.
Democrats appeared pessimistic in the aftermath of the vote.

"I just don't know how this is going to sort itself out. The Republicans are taking a really incredibly hard stance on this," a Senate Democratic official told BBC News. "They're saying this is not a negotiation - this is a demand."

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said at a White House press briefing on Thursday that the White House is contending with "a small number of Republicans who want to hold that aid hostage for some pretty extreme border policies".
But much of the recent public opposition to the funding bill came from lawmakers - such as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham - who remain supportive of Ukraine aid.

Rather than oppose helping Ukraine on ideological or political grounds, these Republicans have sought to use the issue as a way to accomplish other policy goals. Their key aims include tougher border security, immigration and asylum measures at the US-Mexico border.

So it is quite clear that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats that wanted to tie together funding Ukraine with the Border security.

So the Democrats conceeded and they did just that, presented a bipartisan bill for both.
But Trump said to oppose it, and so now the Republicans are opposing it, even though they were included in the negations for it.
Were they acting on bad faith in the negotiations? Did they never intend to support any bill for either Ukraine funding or Border security?

Or did they change their mind once D Trump told them to reject it?