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.

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

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    51·
    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.worldEnglish
      17·
      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
        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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          32·
          9 months ago

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

          Here you go:

          “What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said Friday night. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

          Biden, who has recently expressed optimism that a bipartisan deal could come soon, reiterated that the border is “broken” and argued that “it’s long past time to fix it.”

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-promises-shut-border-authority-bipartisan-bill-rcna135980

          It was a pretty big story, and very recent…

          Maybe you shouldn’t put so much energy into defending Biden if you’re unaware of what he’s doing and saying

          Because seriously, your defenses in this thread are pretty much the opposite of what Biden is saying. Where did you even get that stuff?

          Are you just rationalizing whatever Biden does instead of taking the time to find out why he says he’s doing it?

          That’s what Republicans do…

          Just blindly rationalize their teams actions.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            9 months ago

            Haha, maybe you shouldn’t pretend he says things he didn’t?

            You kept telling me that Biden asserted that he needed this bill. That is not in the quote you provided.

            Biden is saying that if the deal passes, he can legally shut down the border, which as I mentioned in the last comment, I can think of several reasons is a good thing.

            The quote you provide corresponds exactly to what I said in previous comments.

            Do you want to ask a different question?

            Or ask for clarification?

            I don’t see how providing this quote which almost exactly corroborates my first point about being a stop gap for an overwhelming amount of illegal immigrants, clarifies anything.

            Yes, part of this deal gives the president legal authority to shut down the border.

            Is that your question?

            You said your question was why did Biden say he needed the bill, but he doesn’t say that.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
              07·
              9 months ago

              You kept telling me that Biden asserted that he needed this bill.

              Literally never…

              This entire time I’ve been talking about Bidenss one addition, I even just clarified that…

              I’m sorry, I just don’t see anyway that I can ever help you understand this or anything else.

              • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                4·
                9 months ago

                Here are three quotes from your previous comments where you state that Biden said he needed this provision:

                “Why is Biden repeatedly saying he needs it?”

                "Is Biden as smart as you and just openly lying that he needs this?’

                “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?”

                When I asked you for a quote of Biden saying he needed that provision, you gave me a quote where Biden iterates what this provision would allow him to do as president, not that he needed the provision.