The G.O.P. abandoned a bipartisan border security bill that also aided Ukraine after Democrats called their bluff on immigration, agreeing to tough measures Republicans demanded.

Congressional Republicans thought they had set a clever trap for Democrats that would accomplish complementary political and policy goals.

Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

The turn of events led to a remarkable Capitol Hill spectacle this week as a parade of Senate Republicans almost instantly repudiated a major piece of legislation they had spent months demanding as part of any agreement to provide more help to a beleaguered Ukraine. Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader and foremost Republican advocate of helping Ukraine, and Senator James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican who invested months in cutting the border deal, suggested they would vote to block it on the floor in a test vote set for Wednesday.

Non-paywall link

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think it is because Republicans started to believe their own media lies that all Democrats wanted open borders and unfettered amnesty for all. As far as I can tell, the Democrats priorities in all this is simply to treat everyone, including migrants, with human dignity. That includes illegals already in the country, who have been working to fit in to their communities and are generally law-abiding (other than the law they broke to stay here in the first place). It also includes the kids who were brought here as children and only know America, but find out too late that they weren’t born here.

    So when this current round of negotiations started, and Democrats understood that none of their priorities regarding illegals already in the country were on the table, in a sense it freed them to negotiate more, because they don’t care as much as Republicans do about the stuff that was left. Democrats probably don’t care quite so much whether a migrant is admitted or turned away, as long as those migrants are not dying on razor wire, with the Texas National Guard preventing anyone from helping.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      9 months ago

      You know that’s… A good point. I personally don’t care that people are turned away, I just want people given the chance, to do it safely, and to help those in immediate danger.

      • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Probably because you’re not a heartless piece of shit. I commend you for having a modicum of human decency!

  • 18-24-61-B-17-17-4@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

    I always see “migrant surge at the border”. It’s been years and years and years of this. Has there ever actually been a surge?

    • SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      9 months ago

      CARAVANS of MURDERERS and RAPISTS they said. Republicans have a very fertile imagination. Very dystopian and very dark, and not at all bound to reality, but very fertile.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I find it really odd that a migrant caravan or immigrant surge always seems to start on January in even years, and often are more frequent in years that are divisible by 4.

      They suddenly disappear, never to be heard from the Wednesday after the first Monday in November.

      I can’t quite put my finger as to why but maybe someone smarter than me can look into it.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s hard to find good data on this, partially because illegal migrant crossings are, well, illegal, and so those migrants intend to cross without being found, and won’t appear in any statistics. But in the cases where migrants are caught in process and are able to be sent back over the border, well, they are going to pick another place to try again. So those numbers are likely to be inflated a bit, as the same people may be caught multiple times.

      But what’s not in dispute is that the number has been rising every year, and the current structure we have to process them can’t catch up. Republicans are aghast that sometimes, when we catch an illegal on our side of the border, all we can do is give them a court date and release them. But if our system is overloaded, there’s not much else they can do.

      And the bussing of migrants from Texas to Chicago and New York might be a political stunt (and possibly illegal itself), but it’s an effective one. It’s hard to deny the numbers when they show up at the bus station. But it further emphasizes that the people running Texas think of these migrants as little more than cattle.

      I think it’s important to add that this “surge” is a statistical surge, not a literal one. “God’s Army” is not going to come to the border and find a big hole in the wall, and migrants pouring in. Yes, there are a lot of migrants currently on the other side of that park, but thats because it’s easy to get to. they can always just find a different place to cross. The border is so massive that people can leak through, a few at a time, and still amount to a statistically significant increase.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        when we catch an illegal on our side of the border, all we can do is give them a court date and release them

        This is especially true since 80-90% of the time, they do show up for court.

        Republican propaganda notwithstanding, a lot of people are generally honest people who do understand the consequences of further pissing off the most powerful government in the world. A little surprisingly, that includes people who are in such a desperate situation that literally taking what objects or family members they can carry and swimming across the Rio Grande into a country they know will be hostile to them is the best option available.

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

      Found some data that is digestible. Their have been peaks, but a lot of the noise about the border during the Obama years was the GOP boy crying wolf. But now there is actually some real shit going down at the border and a lot of people are only now realizing that there is a fuck load of people trying to get asylum. Way more border encounters than ever before.

      Although, I do wonder how many of these encounters are a result of the new trend of migrants willingly surrendering to border patrol. I imagine that, in the past, many more people did the opposite and were not counted as an “encounter” statistic. They were never encountered at all.

      https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/

      https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I can’t put my hands on the actual statistics so my numbers could be off, but I was listening to an interview with Chris Murphy where he said that in the last 10 years, there’s been a jump greater than an order of magnitude in immigration 500/year to 8000/year with no increase in tools or people to assist.

      • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah his interview on PSA was great. I have absolutely no problem sending more funding and support to the border, I just don’t want us to be assholes to these people and the Republicans and committed to their core at being assholes.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It can be easy to get lost in all the media noise about this. Honestly, the best thing to do is to look at the data. The US government has been tracking “southern boarder encounters” for decades.

      I’m rushing to a meeting right now and don’t have the time to grab some data, but as I recall, the previous to high peaks were around 1.6m encounters a year. And that had everyone freaking out. I believe the US is hovering around 2.4m southern border encounters for 2023.

      My numbers might be a little off, but the point is, border encounters are significantly higher than they’ve ever been. Which is why even blue state governors and mayors that are pro-sanctuary are holding press conferences and asking for federal intervention.

  • nvvp@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    Sure, they deserve to get dragged for thieir hypocrisy and stupidity, but their fanbase will never see that criticism because they are all drooling morons who live in a fox news facebook bubble.

    I wonder if the Dems made all these concessions knowing the Repubs would shoot themselves in the foot, but I doubt either party can think that far ahead.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    They have told so many lies—big and small—about immigration and immigrants that, faced in an election year with the chance to enact their policy proposals, all they can do is lie some more

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      A few things:

      U.S birthrate has fallen below replacement. Without immigration we would be facing the same issues as south Korea and Japan. An declining population will lead to higher wages and a collapsed real estate market. This will lead to long term economic stagnation and then decline.

      Illegal immigration supplies a steady stream of poorly educated people to be exploited by their wealthier Republican base. Immigration reform is a talking point for Republicans. The leadership absolutely does not want it to happen.

      What they want is to slow down generational integration into the main demographic from the children taking advantage of opportunities.

      They want the parents who immigrated to work in the fields/factories for a pittance. The more scared they are of being deported, the less noise they will make when they are abused. They also want their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to do the same. It’s what the Jim Crow laws were meant to do, keep the black people slaves in all but name.

      So they fight against education and social services that allows people to escape the cycle of poverty.

      • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        U.S birthrate has fallen below replacement.

        Rising teen pregnancy rates due to abortion bans should take care of that!

        /s in case that’s not clear…

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        This will lead to long term economic stagnation and then decline.

        Perhaps in terms of GDP. Does it necessarily mean the people already alive will be worse off? We can make choices to ensure it doesn’t, and to hell with GDP.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

    The turn of events led to a remarkable Capitol Hill spectacle this week as a parade of Senate Republicans almost instantly repudiated a major piece of legislation they had spent months demanding as part of any agreement to provide more help to a beleaguered Ukraine.

    “A year ago they said, ‘We need a change in the law,’” said Mr. Lankford, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had been up in arms about the border situation only to suddenly reject the new legislation.

    As they sought to rationalize their anticipated decision to mount a filibuster against legislation they had called for, Republicans said they needed more time to digest the bill and perhaps be allowed to propose some changes.

    Mr. Barrasso’s statement was just the latest indication that the looming election — and Donald J. Trump’s tightening grip on the party as the front-runner for the nomination — had made Republican approval of the border deal all but impossible.

    House Republicans are going to be in a pitched battle to hold on to their majority after two years in charge with minimal accomplishment, and many of them view immigration as a winning wedge issue.


    The original article contains 1,075 words, the summary contains 241 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    9 months ago

    And Biden tied Ukraine aid to permanently allowing any president to shut down the border…

    For no fucking reason.

    So now either Ukraine doesn’t get aid, or every republican president can shut the border down, and if a Dem president doesn’t, illegal immigration will skyrocket every time a Dem is president.

    For generations this will be a problem, and I haven’t heard a single valid reason for Biden insisting it be included.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Any president can shut down the border at will, Nixon and Reagan dabbled in it, obviously Trump did, it’s not some unheard of precedent.

      Perhaps more importantly, it’s not some sort of precedent like the supreme Court codifying or later overturning roe versus Wade. “Closing the border” is not numerically effective, is subject to change according to every administration, this does not tie foreign aid together with southern border crossing closures, and it’s ridiculous to think that the Biden administration isn’t aware of that, especially since only one third of illegal immigrants come through that southern border.

      This is a simple Democratic win-win counter-move to idiot conservative attempts to stop funding Ukraine to resist Russia.

      Republicans gambled that Biden would never agree to stricter immigration controls, and so the Republicans would be able to kneecap US support of Ukraine, proving they don’t understand anything about border control, immigration, politics or logic.

      This is about as easy a win for Biden to prove how spineless and how many of the Republicans are acting in bad faith, as well as to stop gap a real, though not fundamental or critical issue.

      There are finite resources to be distributed, the US doesn’t have a robust immigration system or a social care system in place, and every year, over 10 million people, or about 3% of the US population, illegally enters the United States.

      Biden agrees to a measure that, while dumb, forces Republicans to either follow their deal or prove publicly, in an election year that Republican politicians are even less trustworthy than you may have thought.

      With the major fracturing going on right now within the Republican party, the Republicans are basically handing Biden an easy and major political win by abandoning one of the central party they have campaigned on and many people voted for them because of.

      Republicans who vociferously advocated for border reform are now withdrawing in droves after having their demands met, further cementing how pathetically partisan the republicans really are, that they have no ethics or social responsibility, all they’re trying to do is make somebody else look bad and get their guys back in the right chairs.

      With the United States population growing by 3% every year, and those 3% not being a part of the system that can recognize, employ, benefit from the significant value that immigrants add (and have always added) to the United States, agreeing to funding expanded border enforcement is a win-win for the Democrats.

      They prove they’re willing to work with Republicans, it does stop gap what is an important, though nowhere near critical issue in the United States, and the Republicans look like absolutely untrustworthy fools in an uncommonly important election year.

      All the Democrats have to do is look like they’re taking the higher road, and they technically are, and they get everything they want whether the Republicans honor their word, which was unlikely, or the Republicans run away because their scheme was exposed, which is happening.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Progressives lose either way.

        Either Ukraine doesn’t get aid, or the border is shut when we have a Republican president forever.

        Which means those crossing illegally will wait for Dem presidents.

        Giving republicans the narrative that Dems are soft on immigration.

        We’re handing them something to campaign on for generations, and they’d actually have data to back it up.

        It’s a bad move, not just today, but the rest of America’s existence

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          That doesn’t really bear out.

          Again, this is not a precedent or codification of border control.

          By your logic, anytime there was a conservative president, our southern border should have been closed forever.

          Obviously it has not been.

          Unauthorized immigrants are not very concerned whether or not you are democrat or Republican or whether your president is, they wants to get across the giant, giant border and they consistently get across the giant, giant, giant border, especially if economic opportunities back home are less then promising.

          This deal gives the impression that Democrats are tough on immigration, since this is the most funding ever agreed to by a liberal administration to border enforcement. I believe by any administration.

          I’m not sure who “they” are or what “data” you’re talking about, but this is a very simple counter move to a foolish par- for- the- course gamble by conservatives that has backfired splendidlyb against conservatives in a very important election year.

          The only future ramifications I can see are the Democrats looking proactive on immigration, which is an accumulative issue that the United States does have to reform eventually anyway.

          This is a very smart, cost-effective, and powerful move by the Biden administration.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            So your argument is this does absolutely nothing…

            Then why is Biden repeatedly saying he needs it?

            Are you not only smarter than me but also you’re smarter than Biden?

            Or is Biden as smart as you and just openly lying that he needs this?

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Approving this bill has several important consequences.

              This provides an immigration stop gap while an administration comes up with a good idea for border reform, since border reform is a significant, although not critical bipartisan issue.

              This deal provides needed funding for a number of more critical issues, chiefly military aid forUkraine resisting Russia, as well as aid for US allies in Asia to counter heavy Chinese ally investment, and humanitarian aid for Gaza and Israel Ukraine

              The deal also exposes Republicans to be bad faith actors, when they should be at least dedicated to their issues and the unified conservative minority is a significant danger because of the tainted supreme court and lower court judges.

              Conservatives have no legitimate political interests currently, but people need to see that first hand, and this deal has provided the perfect opportunity.

              For the Biden administration specifically, this coincidentally also gives them great leverage in an uncommonly important election year.

              I can’t be sure about being smarter than you or Biden.

              I can be sure that even if you need something, you don’t always get it.

              For example, contrary to the needs of many, Trump was elected in 2016. Nobody needed that.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                You’re talking about the whole bill.

                Why?

                Can you just not answer why Biden insists he needs the bit about presidents unilaterally shutting the border down if it doesn’t do anything?

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I’m talking about the whole bill because that’s the context of our conversation so far, and you haven’t mentioned you want to minimize the conversation to a specific topic.

                  I’m not familiar with Biden saying he specifically needs certain presidential authorities to unilaterally shutting down the border.

                  Can you give me an in-context quote specifically about the part of the bill you are concerned with?

                  I understand a few reasons why any administration would want to codify a major action that might be necessary more often in the future, but I think I’ll need more context for what you were talking about since you seem focused on something specific.