Chaos in Congress

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
Post Reply
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

The text of the Senate's big bipartisan immigration and foreign aid bill has been released (the link is to NBC's report).

On immigration, it would make major changes along the lines of what Republicans have demanded for years and leaves one big Democratic goal unfulfilled. Here is NBC's summary:
The bill includes a new emergency authority that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to, as Biden has put it, “shut down” the border if there are too many migrants trying to cross.

DHS could close the border if Border Patrol encounters 4,000 or more migrants on average over a seven-day period. The border would have to be shut down if those encounters reached a seven-day average of 5,000 or if they exceeded 8,500 in a single day.

The border couldn’t be shut down under this authority for more than 270 days in the first year. And the bill would give the president the power to suspend a border closure “on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest.”

During an emergency closure, Border Patrol would still need to process a minimum of 1,400 migrants who try to enter the U.S. legally through ports of entry. Only unaccompanied minors would be able to cross between ports of entry. And any migrant who tried to cross illegally two or more times during a border emergency would be barred from the U.S. for a year.

That "consequence," Sinema said, represents "one key difference between the use of Title 42 and our new border authority. It will create disincentives for individuals who seek to cross illegally into the country during border closure.”

The bill would also end the practice of “catch and release.” If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete an asylum interview. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.

The bill would mandate that migrants who attempt to enter the U.S. outside of official ports of entry be detained, pending any asylum claims. Those who fail would also be removed.

The bill allocates funding for repatriation flights up to 77 per day.

Current and former DHS officials had told NBC News that the emergency shutdown provision in the bill would cause chaos and might not be effective unless Mexico agreed to take more migrants turned away from the U.S. The bill doesn’t include new cooperation from Mexico.

The bill also raises the “credible fear” standard during interviews for asylum claims, largely by front-loading consideration of whether a migrant has a disqualifying criminal history, whether they lived safely in a third country before trying to cross into the U.S. and whether they could safely relocate within their own country.

The bill doesn't address the children of undocumented people, known as DREAMers, long a priority of Democrats. It would change immigration laws to allow the children of people with H-1B visas to get work authorizations and freeze their legal ages while waiting for green cards, rather than face deportation once they hit age 21. While they wait, those children would be able to have work authorizations. These changes would affect about 250,000 children in the U.S., Sinema’s staff told reporters on a call on Sunday night.

The bill also provides a pathway to conditional, lawful, permanent residency for vetted Afghan nationals who were admitted or paroled into the U.S. after July 2021. The Afghan allies, many of whom worked directly with American forces during the war, and their families would be exempt from immigration quota limitations and could apply for naturalization.

And the bill would add new flexibility for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol to make new hires, seeking to address staffing shortages. The changes in hiring authorities are all set to sunset in the next few years and would have to be renewed.
I still don't understand what it really means to "shut down" the border.

Both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have endorsed the bill.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46196
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

If I understand correctly, even though this bill does almost all of what House Republicans have demanded, it is a non-starter in the House. Is that your understanding as well?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

Voronwë the Faithful wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:29 am If I understand correctly, even though this bill does almost all of what House Republicans have demanded, it is a non-starter in the House. Is that your understanding as well?
Yep. It would easily pass the House if given a vote, but unless a majority of Republicans support it, that vote won't happen.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

The bill (total coast $118 billion) also includes:
--$60 billion for Ukraine
--$14 billion for Israel (they don't need it, but whatever)
--$12 billion for humanitarian aid to people living in (and refuguees from) Gaza, Ukraine, and other war zones
--$5 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacifi nations
--$2 billion to strengthen U.S. naval security in the Red Sea

Edited to add Mitch McConnell's statement of support, including: "The Senate must carefully consider the opportunity in front of us and prepare to act. ... [this bill provides] direct and immediate solutions to the crisis at our southern border."
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46196
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

The political calculation seems to be that passing this bill would help Biden. But wouldn't blocking this bill hurt Trump? Or am I just naive?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

N.E. Brigand wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:24 am The text of the Senate's big bipartisan immigration and foreign aid bill has been released (the link is to NBC's report).

On immigration, it would make major changes along the lines of what Republicans have demanded for years and leaves one big Democratic goal unfulfilled. Here is NBC's summary:
The bill includes a new emergency authority that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to, as Biden has put it, “shut down” the border if there are too many migrants trying to cross.

DHS could close the border if Border Patrol encounters 4,000 or more migrants on average over a seven-day period. The border would have to be shut down if those encounters reached a seven-day average of 5,000 or if they exceeded 8,500 in a single day.

The border couldn’t be shut down under this authority for more than 270 days in the first year. And the bill would give the president the power to suspend a border closure “on an emergency basis for up to 45 days if it is in the national interest.”

During an emergency closure, Border Patrol would still need to process a minimum of 1,400 migrants who try to enter the U.S. legally through ports of entry. Only unaccompanied minors would be able to cross between ports of entry. And any migrant who tried to cross illegally two or more times during a border emergency would be barred from the U.S. for a year.

That "consequence," Sinema said, represents "one key difference between the use of Title 42 and our new border authority. It will create disincentives for individuals who seek to cross illegally into the country during border closure.”

The bill would also end the practice of “catch and release.” If passed into law, the bill would allow migrants who come to the border through lawful ports of entry and families to enter the U.S. under federal supervision for 90 days while they complete an asylum interview. Those who pass would receive work permits as they await adjudication of their claims. Those who fail would be removed from the U.S. and repatriated to their home countries or to Mexico.
I still don't understand what it really means to "shut down" the border.
OK, I guess what this refers to is ending asylum law as it currently stands. Right now, anyone in the U.S., no matter where they entered, can claim asylum and the U.S. has to give that claim serious consideration. And because the U.S. doesn't have the capacity to detain all those people, many of them are released pending a hearing, which can take years. "Shutting down" the border means that policy ends (except at regular ports of entry) whenever there's a surge and such people would be automatically deported.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

Voronwë the Faithful wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:55 am The political calculation seems to be that passing this bill would help Biden. But wouldn't blocking this bill hurt Trump? Or am I just naive?
Trump has told Republicans to block it. He thinks that chaos at the border helps his campaign. Also I am pretty sure he has reached an agreement with Vladimir Putin to block aid to Ukraine.

Steve Scalise, the number two House Republican, says the "Senate Border Bill will NOT receive a vote in the House". Some observers wonder if that closes the door on something similar passing instead. I'm not too hopeful. Scalise goes on to lie about the bill, saying that "it accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients—a magnet for more illegal immigration." Sen. James Lankford, a Republican and one of the bill's three co-authors, says:
Some people have said it would mean 5,000 people a day are coming into the country every day. That is absurd and untrue. The emergency authority is not designed to let 5,000 people in, it is designed to close the border and turn 5,000 people around. The Border Emergency Authority only lasts 3 years to force this Administration to shut down the border and to give time for the next POTUS to hire more agents and more officers. After three years, the emergency authority expires because we should have regained full control of our border by then.
Scanning the social media replies to Lankford's explanation, I see far right trolls calling for a complete end to asylum, deadly force used on people who cross the border, immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants currently in the country including asylum seekers, the end of birthright citizenship, the death penalty for all smugglers, an end to all assistance programs for immigrants, and severe legal consequences for anyone "caught sheltering or aiding" illegal immigrants ("including churches"). Now if that last item includes companies that hire illegal immigrants, then Donald Trump is going to jail.

Meanwhile some progressive members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla, not to mention the ACLU, are attacking the bill for being too harsh on immigrants.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46196
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Voronwë the Faithful wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:55 am The political calculation seems to be that passing this bill would help Biden. But wouldn't blocking this bill hurt Trump? Or am I just naive?
I'm not the only one thinking that way.

"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

If Biden were to campaign on this, it might help him that a number of Democrats, ranging from Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Sen. Bob Menendez, say the bill is too tough on immigrants, e.g., there's nothing in it about the Dreamers. But I'm just not sure that he can break through many Republicans' willful blindness. I'm seeing one elected representative after another on the right say that the bill (which delivers so much they've been asking for!) would "incentivize thousands of illegals to pour across our borders daily".
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tries to offer some context:



Donald Trump's administration released more immigrants into the U.S. than either Barack Obama's or George W. Bush's administration.

Joe Biden's administration has released even more because even more people have tried to come to the U.S.

That's why Republicans wanted the laws changed, to give presidents to expel illegal immigrants who make asylum claims. Democrats were reluctant but have agreed to compromise and now Republicans don't want what they said they did. But that's not so easy to convey to the American public.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46196
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

But they need to try. On the other hand, this is the crew that can't seem to inform they public that they were responsible for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the various important policy changes implemented by even the Manchin-reduced Inflation Reduction Act, or even that the economy is booming despite all predictions otherwise.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

I appreciate this argument:
On the immigration deal:

To liberals: If you want the legal right to asylum to continue existing over the long term, then you need to make affirmative changes to the system so that it can function and promptly reject bad claims. Otherwise the ultimate endgame is dark.

To conservatives: You're not going to get a deal that puts this many procedural curbs and dedicates this many resources to enforcement out of a Democratic senate minority [i.e., if Republican retake the Senate and White House in November, they'd still lack the votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster] and without making much bigger offsetting policy concessions. The incentive is here now for Biden to sell low.

A deal now will help us, hopefully:
— End the use of bogus asylum claims as a loophole.
— Leave a legitimate path to asylum in place.
— Let other immigration issues be decided later.

The other timeline is much darker.

I think the hard right is likely correct that if chaos continues unabated, they will eventually amass enough power to just end the possibility of claiming asylum, but it's a long road with tons of stops and starts and lawsuits, and in the end, you still need to make deals for the money.

To be clear, I'm saying immigration restrictionists are going to need to make deals to get money for immigration enforcement* — you can't detain people or do deportations with tweets; it requires material resources.

It's clearly challenging for a movement shot through with grifters and psychos to strike pragmatic bargains, but that's where we are. The way the legislative process works is that at some point you need to bargain.
That last comment links to a story about tensions this morning between the Republican staff teams of Sen. James Lankford, who co-authored the bill, and Sen. Mike Lee, who in the space of a few hours last night went from saying the Senate should take "at least a few weeks" reading the bill before voting to calling it "Dead On Arrival" and saying that Senate leadership should be fired.

The White House is trying to sell the bill, pointing out that it includes:
-100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl
-Over 1,500 new U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel
-1,200 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel
As noted *above, these things all require money, and this bill would pay for them. But it's hard to overcome the false Republican claims that President Biden really could address these issues just by snapping his fingers. And the media is doing a terrible job of conveying that to the public.

But Sen. Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawai'i, thinks Democrats can get through to the public:
I do think House Republicans are underestimating how easy it will be to point out that this bill does the stuff they asked for and they suddenly opposed it because Trump wanted to deny Biden a victory. It’s quite easy to explain in the suburbs.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

Meanwhile, the Daily Beast reports that "Nancy Mace's entire D.C. office has turned over since Nov. 1. Former staff members described a 'toxic' work culture driven by a 'delusional' boss." Rep. Mace is a Republican from South Carolina who was elected in 2020. She supported Donald Trump during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, denounced him following the events of Jan. 6th but voted against his second impeachment, and recently endorsed his 2024 bid despite having been supported in 2020 by her fellow South Carolinian Nikki Haley.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Posts: 12951
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
Location: North Shire

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by RoseMorninStar »

N.E. Brigand wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2024 6:33 pm (...)
But Sen. Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawai'i, thinks Democrats can get through to the public:
I do think House Republicans are underestimating how easy it will be to point out that this bill does the stuff they asked for and they suddenly opposed it because Trump wanted to deny Biden a victory. It’s quite easy to explain in the suburbs.
(I know you know this but I'll say it anyway) The Senate has to represent a broader spectrum of people and therefore has to be more deliberate, whereas hate & culture war stuff works so well with the smaller house gerrymandered districts.
My heart is forever in the Shire.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business organization that usually backs Republicans, has called for this bill to be passed immediately. I like this description of the current situation: "In the upside-down world of politics now, where Republicans are walking away from the most conservative border bill in decades, and Democrats are backing it with no major path to legalization for the undocumented, the traditionally Republican Chamber's backing will likely deter Republican support."

- - - - -
David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who left the Republican Party about ten years ago but who has remained staunchly conservative on immigration issues and harshly criticized Democrats on immigration many times, says: "It's basically a border hawk's dream bill, plus frosting and candles. This is the toughest immigration bill there will ever be. It's very important in life to recognize when you've received the other guy's best offer. Say No to that, and what you get is ... No."

For example, the bill includes $7.6 billion in additional funding for ICE -- once a liberal bogeyman -- which doubles the agency's annual budget and includes $6 billion specifically for detention (capacity goes from 34,000 to 50,000) and deportation.

- - - - -
Appearing on Newsmax, Sen. Lankford says: "I would remind folks that during the Trump administration we also had days of more than 4,000 people that were illegally crossing the border in 2019, and they were struggling, because there were gaps and loopholes in the law."

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a quirky Republican from Texas, who hasn't said that he'll support this bill, points out that the claim from many in his party that no new immigration laws are needed is obviously false, given that Donald Trump couldn't control immigration and that the House just passed a different immigration bill of their own.

- - - - -
Here's a useful summary of the bill from a Fox news reporter, of all sources.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Posts: 12951
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
Location: North Shire

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by RoseMorninStar »

It makes one wonder, passing up on this 'Hawk's dream bill, plus frosting and candles', what is expected in return. Trump wants re-elected, of course, but what are the standard run-of-the-mill Republican representatives and supporters expecting? They obviously think their base either doesn't follow the news, doesn't understand, or doesn't care. They are fine with being ruled, not represented.
My heart is forever in the Shire.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

The Border Patrol agents' union endorses the bill.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

I don't have much sympathy for Kyrsten Sinema, but oh the replies to this tweet:



She says plainly that under the bill, the "border automatically closes when migrant ENCOUNTERS reach 5,000. This does not mean that 5,000 migrants are permitted to enter the country every day." And yet the responses are full of people saying, "It should be ZERO!"

Really a huge part of the problem is that the public doesn't know what the law is now. And many Republicans prefer it that way.
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

Rep. Don Beyer (Democrat of Virginia) helpfully lays out a timeline showing that it was House Speaker Mike Johnson's idea that Ukraine aid and immigration law changes should be packaged together. I'm seeing a ridiculous amount of misunderstanding on that point. If not for the Ukraine funds, Democrats wouldn't touch this bill, since it doesn't offer a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants who have worked hard and paid their taxes (some $11 billion each year).

(Oh dear. One reply to Beyer asks, "When are you and your kids going to the front line to defend Ukraine?" One major goal of the U.S. funding Ukraine is that by helping Ukraine to win, the U.S. preserves a bulwark against future Russian incursions into Europe and lowers the risk of U.S. servicemembers being on the front line!)
N.E. Brigand
Posts: 7053
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:41 am
Location: Cleveland, OH, USA

Re: Chaos in Congress

Post by N.E. Brigand »

The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal says, "By any honest reckoning, this is the most restrictive migrant legislation in decades."
Post Reply