GOP’s border bill outrage underscores a political shift

The proposed border security deal, announced after long and arduous negotiations in the Senate, stumbled at the gate.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) declared the push “dead on arrival.” In the Senate, which is typically more tolerant of bipartisan moderation than the House, at least 19 Republican senators have vowed to vote against the bill.

Even if the proposal were able to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate (a scenario that relies on overwhelming support from Democrats), it would have a very difficult time passing the House. As of Monday night, no Republican House members had publicly supported the proposal.

If the effort fails, it would be a setback for both Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the lead Republican negotiator, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Dew.

But that downfall will be another victory for former President Trump. Such an outcome would indicate that his hawkish stance on immigration may still persist and that his broader control over the Republican Party remains strong.

“Only idiots or radical left Democrats would vote for this horrible border bill,” President Trump wrote on social media Monday morning.

Late Monday, President Trump told conservative media personality Dan Bongino that the bill “could be a very bad bill for America.” [Lankford’s] Especially during his career at Oklahoma State. ”

Republican supporters of this proposal are making two related arguments.

First, they argue that it has real teeth to deal with the historically high levels of illegal immigration currently taking place.

Second, they say current politics opens an unusual window of opportunity.

The argument goes that Democrats are so excited about immigration because it is an obvious political vulnerability in an election year. With Democrats holding a majority in the Senate and Democrats seeking re-election to the White House, the party has a clear political incentive to strike a deal.

McConnell is among those who argue that Democrats would have no incentive to do so if a Republican president were elected and Republicans took back the Senate. In that scenario, Democrats would simply oppose whatever ideas Republicans come up with.

In a social media post, Lankford called the proposal “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stop chaos and protect our nation.”

Oklahoma senator raises standards for immigrants to claim asylum in the U.S., expands expedited removal of illegal immigrants and essentially shuts down processing if border encounters reach 5,000 people per day He cited clauses that would drive people back.

But that last element has drawn fierce attacks from the right, with critics portraying it as tacit approval of the arrival of up to 5,000 migrants per day.

Critics on the left, meanwhile, are furious, seeing it as a return to Trump-era policies they view as inhumane. They also clearly see these changes on Biden’s part as driven by political expediency.

Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive movement Indivisible, said her organization is “opposed to reinstating failed Trump-era immigration policies and is pushing for future Republican presidents to pursue immigration and “We oppose giving new powers to impose cruel policies on asylum seekers.” Seeker. ”

In fact, the proposals currently being considered are far more aggressive than other attempts at immigration reform from the beginning of this century.

For example, former President George W. Bush, while in office, expressed support for a plan to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. 2007 declaration of principles President Bush acknowledged that “America’s immigration problem cannot be solved by security measures alone.”

Such language seems almost archaic in the days when President Trump was calling for “build the wall,” and now, when the former president denounced immigrants as “tainting America’s blood.”

Still, more moderate Republican observers argue that it is the huge influx of immigrants, not Trump himself, that has primarily changed the politics of the issue.

They point to the financial and infrastructure strain not only on border towns, but also on major cities such as New York and Chicago, where new arrivals are provided with shelter and services.

Alex Conant, a Republican consultant who worked on Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Florida) 2016 presidential campaign, said, “Absent some kind of political response, this many people will show up at the southern border every day.” That’s impossible,” he said.

“I think this has pushed the Republican Party even further into President Trump’s populist position, but at the same time, it has pushed Republicans even further into President Trump’s populist position, but at the same time, they’re saying that we have to do something about the border before we can address other elements of our broken immigration system.” We made the Democratic Party aware of this.”

More than 300,000 encounters occurred at the Southwest border in December, according to the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This number was the highest ever.

Supporters of the proposal received a bit of a boost Monday when the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing rank-and-file employees, endorsed it.

But that doesn’t seem to be enough to boost overall fortunes.

Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist who worked in the Bush White House, lamented that if immigration reform had been achieved in the first decade of this century, “we might not be in the quagmire we are in now.” Ta.

But he also cited high levels of border crossings as a key factor driving political opinion in a more hawkish direction.

Of course, there’s another factor to consider. It’s a political reality that President Trump and those close to him don’t want to give Biden the tools to defuse a inflammatory issue in an election year.

Mr. Blakeman said Mr. Trump is “definitely a factor, because now everyone sees him as the candidate.”

“Even if he doesn’t get elected to anything and doesn’t vote for anything, he still has a bully pulpit.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage. Additional reporting by Rafael Bernal.