Following the turn of the year, a fresh round of contention emerged between US President Joseph Biden and Congressional Republicans, centring on a proposal to allocate extra funding for bolstering the US-Mexico border—a move tied to broader immigration reform in exchange for support to Ukraine and Israel. Yet, amidst the intensifying battle for the US presidency, the discourse on seeking political consensus seems to have faded away. Indeed, the narrative has long shifted away from Ukraine, underscoring the intricate dynamics at play in domestic politics.
On Sunday, February 4, bipartisan senators concluded the drafting of a $118 billion agreement encompassing aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged to convene a procedural vote on Wednesday. Yet, securing the essential 60 votes poses a challenge, with the Republican Party’s lead negotiator, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, indicating that approximately 20-25 Republican senators may withhold their support. Additionally, some Democrats, particularly those not favouring a stricter immigration policy, could align with them.
Previously, when questioned about the prospective outcome of the agreement, Senator Josh Hawley openly addressed coordinated Republican endeavours aimed at thwarting Joe Biden’s potential reelection bid. “If it’s [deal – Ed.] not dead yet, it should be dead. There is absolutely no reason to agree to policies that would further enable Joe Biden”. It seems that Republicans, who initiated this single security package, intend to use the chaos at the border as a political weapon against the sitting President for as long as possible.
If, toward the end of last year, the unsuccessful vote on the $110 billion package, branded the “Christmas gift to Putin,” was seen as a calculated political manoeuvre, experts now suggest that Republicans are placing greater emphasis on derailing any agreements, irrespective of the geopolitical ramifications for global security. This represents a significant setback for Ukraine, which stands to lose out on vital weaponry.
Even in the event that the Senate approves the 370-page agreement, there remains the possibility of obstruction in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Congresswoman Mary Miller derided it as an “amnesty bill” that “erases our borders” and prioritises America “last.” Other Republicans have labelled the funding for Ukraine “a complete sell-out,” “awful” and “totally unacceptable.”
Prior to the release of the agreement’s text, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) emphasised in a letter to Congress that the agreement would be “dead on arrival in the House” [of Representatives – Ed.] if the text of the agreement matched previous information about compromises. Even Senate Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, who consistently advocated for assistance to Ukraine and sought an agreement with the White House, is beginning to make more cautious statements against the backdrop of the increasing influence of the Republican Party’s most likely candidate, Donald Trump.
On the Truth Social network, former and potentially future President Donald Trump wrote in capital letters: “A BAD BORDER DEAL IS FAR WORSE THAN NO BORDER DEAL!” Later, he declared that the border had become “A weapon of mass destruction — our destruction.” In other posts, Trump called the agreement “meaningless” and “another gift to radical leftist Democrats.” But the most radical statements revolved around the large number of terrorists coming through the porous border and the absolute certainty of upcoming “some horrible acts, terror acts” on U.S. soil. The memory of September 11 is still fresh, and such messages do not go unnoticed.
His comments came after President Biden’s statement on “the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border” in U.S. history, promising to close the border on the day the new emergency powers take effect if needed.
Not all Republicans are comfortable with the pressure from former President Trump and the politicisation of the issue. “If we were given an opportunity [to enact reform – Ed.], and we decided for political purposes not to do it, yeah, I think we could be in serious trouble,” said Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota. “A lot of our candidates could be in serious trouble back home”.
Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah, was more blunt: “The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling”.
Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina shares a similar position: “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win”.
What does the reform entail?
Previous agreements in the Senate concern granting the executive authorities to close the border by presidential order if the daily number of apprehended illegal migrants exceeds 4,000 individuals per day for a week. Currently, border agents simply release a portion of the illegal migrants because they do not have the capacity to process such a large number of people. After the reform, illegal immigrants will face immediate deportation. Overall, all discussions revolve around three main issues: stricter asylum protocols, border control reinforcement through increased personnel and the use of high-tech systems, and migration prevention.
Indeed, migrants encountering persecution in their homelands hold the right to seek refuge in the United States. Nevertheless, the extent of asylum denials following judicial review of these cases underscores the ineffectiveness of prior screening measures. Presently, there are over 2 million pending cases in immigration courts—three times the number from seven years ago. The backlog in immigration courts has resulted in cases taking years to be resolved, making the deportation of individuals who have already integrated into society more challenging and costly. As a solution, the agreement suggests implementing stricter criteria for proving an imminent threat to the life and health of migrants in their home country. Critics of this approach highlight that migrants undergoing interviews often lack legal representation and continue to endure traumatic experiences.
Since President Biden assumed office in 2021, his administration has granted unprecedented numbers of pardons under immigration law, benefiting 1 million refugees from armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as those fleeing political and economic crises in Haiti and Venezuela. Consequently, Republicans are advocating for restrictions on these rights and seeking to enhance oversight over the President’s actions.
Regarding the bolstering of border security, Republicans have deemed the $14 billion proposed by Biden insufficient. Out of this allocation, $3,1 billion is designated for hiring additional Border Patrol agents, workers for migrant processing centres, immigration judges, and related personnel. Another $1,2 billion will be directed towards customs officers and verification systems aimed at halting the influx of deadly fentanyl. Over the past two decades, the death toll from overdoses of various substances in the United States has surged fivefold, with 2021 data indicating that out of 106,000 deaths, more than 70,000 are linked to fentanyl. Additional funding for local communities hosting record numbers of migrants was discussed, but Republicans opposed the proposal due to the fact that most of these communities lean towards voting for Democrats.
One of the most pressing challenges revolves around migration prevention, fueled by the socio-political and criminogenic conditions in some Latin American nations, prompting a surge in refugees. The White House advocates for maintaining a monthly quota of 30,000 individuals from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti, provided they have a financial sponsor. Introducing an app for entry applications earlier this year aimed to alleviate border chaos. However, Dylan Corbett, director of the Hope Border Institute, warns that tighter restrictions might exacerbate migrant accumulation, potentially turning Mexico into a migrant hub due to inadequate infrastructure.
It’s important to remember that Russia has a track record of orchestrating border crises to sow instability. With the Kremlin throwing its support behind Republicans, some of whom echo classic Russian narratives, the situation on the Mexico border could emerge as a significant tool for influencing American elections.
Negotiations nearing deadlock: why?
Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, once remarked that immigration reform comprises “millions of decisions […]. Underneath every big idea is 100 smaller decisions that all have to be made, and each one is complicated”. The peak of illegal immigration in the USA was in 2007, with over 12 million individuals in the country, according to official records. However, this number has since declined to 10,5 million as of 2021. Echoing the storyline of the renowned American movie “A Day Without a Mexican”, the sudden disappearance of all residents of Latin American descent in California sends shockwaves due to the economic and social repercussions, imperilling the state’s way of life.
George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, whose research was cited by Trump, highlights both the positive and negative impacts of migration. On the positive side, migration contributes to economic growth by expanding the workforce, boosting consumer demand, and increasing overall population wealth. However, there are negative consequences, such as downward pressure on wages for certain professions and heightened unemployment among citizens with lower qualifications. In the pre-election race, the border issue is pivotal for both Trump and Biden. Since Biden assumed office, the American border force has documented 6,3 million attempts at illegal border crossings, with over half occurring in Texas border sectors.
The crisis has led to a standoff between the border service, subordinate to the federal government, and the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other state law enforcement agencies, which independently blocked part of the border near Eagle Pass on the banks of the Rio Grande at the beginning of the year, where the highest number of illegal border crossings was recorded. On the official page of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who launched Operation Lone Star, it is noted that the state independently continues to “fill the dangerous gaps created by the Biden Administration’s refusal to secure the border”.
Trump pledged the most extensive deportation and border detention programs in American history. His administration garnered attention for its policy of separately detaining family members of illegal migrants, including children, which sparked international condemnation.
Senator Kirsten Sinema, an independent representative from Arizona and a crucial figure in the Senate negotiation process, asserted that the current decisions will have profound long-term consequences, contributing to delays in reaching an agreement.
Nevertheless, from a long-term perspective, geopolitical errors will take a higher toll on the United States. Ukraine’s potential defeat will pave a direct route to the bolstering of authoritarian regimes and the diminishing of the West’s influence on the global arena. While many in the United States currently view such forecasts as unrealistic, this wouldn’t mark the first U.S. miscalculation since the collapse of the USSR.
This week will demonstrate the real influence of Donald Trump and the resilience of moderate Republicans willing to risk their political future. Even if the Senate reaches an agreement, the agreement may be buried in the House of Representatives. If the hardliners prevail, then Ukrainians, who currently have only enough ammunition for a few weeks, should not take this personally. With the start of the presidential race, this narrative has long ceased to be about Ukraine.
Nothing personal, just business.
