Republicans on the Border Crisis: It Can Wait
Republicans on the Border Crisis: It Can Wait
Plus: Tons of turnover in the 118th Congress.
The crisis at the southern border is grave. The situation is urgent. The stakes are high. So high that if a deal cannot be reached before vacation time, then well, maybe it’ll just have to wait a few more weeks. That’s essentially what Senate Republicans and their colleagues in the House are saying when they skip town without addressing the one issue that’s “not just a crisis, it’s a catastrophe,” as Speaker Mike Johnson put it.
The problems at the southern border—primarily the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl at points of entry as well as the high number of migrants and asylum seekers arriving from South and Central America—have been a key focus among Republicans during the Biden presidency.
“I've never been more worried about a 9/11 than I am today,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters while discussing the dire need to address the number of migrants at the border.
In the run-up to last year’s midterm elections, conservative media stoked fears about migrant “caravans.” More recently, they warned of “military-age Chinese men” amassing in Panama for a march to the United States; tropes that have been appearing in right-wing border discourse for years include stories about “Muslim prayer rugs” being found all along the route to the U.S. border with Mexico. Donald Trump, the de facto leader of the Republican party, has repeatedly said migrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing Adolf Hitler.
This all sounds quite serious, which prompts the question: Why are Democrats the only ones trying to keep everyone working to get an overhauled immigration and border policy bill enacted?
It’s about foreign aid for broader U.S. interests
Democrats want to get military and other forms of aid to Ukraine and Israel to assist in their war efforts, and to Taiwan to help in defense preparedness.
The Ukraine situation is especially pressing. The White House and the Ukrainian government have warned that dwindling resources could put the country’s war effort at risk should U.S. aid dry up at the end of the year. Senate Democrats have tried to reach a deal and then tried again. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer even offered Republicans a vote on their own zero-conditions amendment to the foreign aid bill—an almost unheard of gesture that went unanswered. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky trekked to Capitol Hill to field questions and emphasize the direness of the situation.
But again and again, Republicans have stonewalled the process, adjusted their demands, or done the political equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting “la la la la.”
This week, top Senate Republicans have been clear: there won’t be a vote until 2024.
“That is a fact, yeah. There’s no way,” confirmed Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, indicated that a deal could be reached this week, but even if that happens, there won’t be a vote on the resulting legislation until early to mid-January, according to Bloomberg News.
Are Republicans just playing crass political games with foreign aid?
A few weeks ago, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) wondered whether the process has been made more difficult on purpose.
In my mind, there's only two reasons—two possible reasons that Republicans would not take Senator Schumer up on his historic offer. One, their proposal is so extreme that they can't get ten Democrats to join, or this is all a game because they don't want to fund Ukraine and this is the way they're trying to stop it. And frankly, this would give the biggest Christmas present to Putin you could possibly imagine.
Republican rhetoric about immigration and border security has been keyed to crisis and emergency for years. The crisis is somehow both extreme and unworthy of being addressed on its own, and the emergency is simultaneously a four-alarm fire and the political equivalent of a notice from the library about books being overdue. Essentially, border policy is being used as a bargaining chip—or, as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) put it, capitulating on the border is simply “a price that has to be paid” to Republicans.
One has to wonder, as Stabenow did, if this is really about immigration at all.
People don’t seem to like it here
Continuing on the subject of wanting to leave early, the next Congress will look a lot different than the current one, thanks to a heap of retirements and some good old-fashioned turmoil.
In the Senate, four Democrats are retiring, which is why so many House Dems are vying for their seats. In contrast, just two Republicans are heading for the exits, and both of them are in pretty solid red states (Utah and Indiana). The one Senate resignation so far in this Congress, that of Ben Sasse of Nebraska (remember him?), has already been filled by the appointment of Pete Ricketts, who is campaigning to win the seat in next year’s special election. Laphonza Butler, appointed after the death of Dianne Feinstein of California, is just keeping that reliably blue seat warm through next year’s election.
In the House the situation is far more chaotic.1 More House Democrats (23) are retiring next year than Republicans (11). That tends to happen when control of the chambers flip, as it did at the beginning of the 118th Congress. Being in the minority sucks, especially after having wielded a great deal of power for several years. I can’t imagine it’s very fun during a Congress as dysfunctional as this one, either.
There are also quite a few ambitious Democrats who, in preparing to run for higher office, might not be returning to the House. In California, Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, and Adam Schiff are all vying for Feinstein’s old Senate seat. In addition, Reps. Collin Allred (Texas), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Andy Kim (N.J.), David Trone (Md.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.) are all running for the Senate from their respective states. Rep. Jeff Jackson is running for North Carolina attorney general after having his district redrawn, and Rep. Abigail Spanberger is running for governor of Virginia to succeed term-limited Republican Glenn Youngkin. Last (and maybe least) is Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who is running a primary campaign against Joe Biden with some . . . peculiar tactics.
Meanwhile, Republicans are leading in the alternative category that includes deaths, resignations, and expulsions, with four to Democrats’ three. Democrats have also already replaced two of their three losses via special elections, while Republicans have only filled one slot.
The Republican majority has been narrow from the get-go, but it’s about to get a lot more slim: With the upcoming exits of ousted speaker Kevin McCarthy2 by the end of the month and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) in March, the House GOP majority could be so weak that Speaker Mike Johnson will only be able to afford just three defections without imperiling his agenda. (Mind you, it’s already been the case that every major bill that’s become law in this Congress has gotten across the finish line only because of Democratic support—to the point where Ds have provided a majority of the total votes, according to a recent analysis.)
What’s on that agenda for the months ahead? Key legislation, all-too common censure resolutions, and even impeachments of President Joe Biden or Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Maybe the House Republicans can lean on their uncanny ability to unify each other.
Shocking, I know.
McCarthy’s resignation is set for Dec. 31st.
I have lived in Texas over sixty years, and the border has been a mess the entire time. John McCain helped clarify the problem in his last book, "The Restless Wave". In 2012 McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and five other senators (4 Dems and 4 R's total) came together on an immigration bill. The bill provided for more security and enforcement, more fencing, more customs and border control agents. It provided a more elaborate employment verification system and addressed visas among other things. As McCain wrote, "the bill was a balanced, conservative, scrupulously thorough and fair attempt to settle the immigration problem...". It passed the Senate but was ultimately buried in the House by the Republican Freedom Caucus. Or as McCain called them "the say no to everything crowd". Republicans use the border as a political hammer. They don't give a damn about solving anything especially the border. And it's profoundly aggravating they aren't called on it. Graham is particularly galling because he's conveniently forgotten what he and McCain fought for and that it was House Republicans who shut it down.
Personally, I'm more interested in the Gaetz ethics investigation.