We Need A Grand Bargain On Ukraine and Israel

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    I can’t square the round peg of needing a grand bargain with an isolationist political party that has actively sabotaged prior attempts at reform. With whom, exactly, do democrats negotiate?Report

    • pillsy in reply to Philip H says:

      Democrats–and before them, pro-immigration Republicans–have been trying for almost 20 years to make some sort of bargain around border security, and they have been rebuffed every time.

      It conflicts with BSDI-centric political correctness to say it, but the underlying problem is that the activist core of the anti-immigration movement that has captured the GOP is dominated by white nationalists.

      They won’t accept any workable deal, and they can’t even really be addressed by less extreme and repulsive elements of the Rightward coalition, because the Rightward coalition as a whole is much more invested in maintaining the illusion that there aren’t any white nationalists in positions of power and influence than it is in having an open conversation about them and their interests.

      That’s because such an open conversation would inevitably end with a consensus that I expect a wide spectrum of voters could live with, at the cost of immense damage to the GOP’s electoral prospects as a whole, but avoiding the conversation means they can fundraise from angry white nationalists while complaining endlessly about how mean liberals are for daring to point out that the white nationalists exist.Report

      • Philip H in reply to pillsy says:

        That’s one part. The other part is the unwillingness to grapple with the demand created for these migrants by US businesses. If they weren’t so eager to hire them they wouldn’t come in such great numbers. Keeping things this muddled serves business well.Report

      • Pinky in reply to pillsy says:

        “It conflicts with BSDI-centric political correctness to say it, but the underlying problem is that the activist core of the anti-immigration movement that has captured the GOP is dominated by white nationalists.”

        Well, obviously the white nationalist part is garbage, but when you drop that there’s no conflict at all. You just also have to say that the activist core of the pro-immigration movement has captured the Democrats. Your opponents not caving to you may be one-sided, but neither side caving is BSDI.Report

        • pillsy in reply to Pinky says:

          You just also have to say that the activist core of the pro-immigration movement has captured the Democrats.

          It’s not symmetric. Proposed bargains from both the W and Obama administration were scuttled by anti-immigration hardliners, who ended up capturing the GOP by embedding white nationalists (like Steves Miller and Bannon) in the Trump administration.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

          If that were so, President Biden wouldn’t have asked for $800 Million more then he is currently spending on border security in his FY 2024 budget request. Which it turns out he did.Report

          • pillsy in reply to Philip H says:

            A lot of these arguments–hell, on both Israel and immigration–only make sense under the assumption that both parties are dominated by their Leftward fringes.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    Its misleading to use the term “isolationist” to the MAGAs as if it were a coherent principle.

    In one breath they refuse aid to Ukraine, but in the next, demand an invasion of Mexico. The only principle at work is a defense of authoritarianism at home or abroad.Report

  3. InMD says:

    I don’t really understand the merits of the opposition to funding for border security. Obviously it is not going to solve the illegal immigration problem. It’s rare for me to say this but it seems like a pretty easy give to the Republicans in order to provide Ukraine with the weapons they need, even at the cost of also providing Israel with more weapons that they don’t.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

      1. I don’t think we should negotiate with hostage takers, no matter who they are.

      2. The FY 2024 budget request for CBP, ICE and associated agencies from President Biden already incudes a $800 Million increase request. If the GOP was actually serious about this, all they have to do is pass the President’s budget. You will note they failed to send him a single appropriation bill to sign.

      3. the GOP used similar stalling and “negotiation” tactics to try and tank the ACA after “working with” the Obama Administration for 13 months to get what they said they wanted. This is starting to feel very much like that.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

        I’d still just call the bluff, frankly. IMO we’re really talking about money here not some principle. Spending money on things you don’t want to in order to spend money on things you do is just part of democracy, and unfortunately that may be the only thing that can be done right now, particularly given the state of the GOP.Report

    • North in reply to InMD says:

      As I understand it, InMD, the GOP in the Senate ended up not just asking for more money for border security. They basically took their entire immigration wish list (which includes completely changing-abolishing- asylum and similar policy changes) and said “Give us everything on this list or we won’t vote for cloture”. It wasn’t bargaining, it’s just extortion.
      “Put the GOP’s incoherent immigration posture into force under your administration or else we won’t support all this foreign aid funding we ostensibly support.”

      It’s the same as their budget posture.
      “Cut safety nets under your administration the way we want it cut (so we can then blame you for it, get elected and cut taxes, then repeat the process) or else we won’t let you fund the government at all.”Report

      • Philip H in reply to North says:

        Also true as best I can tell. Again, if it really was about funding there is a Democratic proposal on the legislative table.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        If that’s the case I wouldn’t give anything substantive on the policy front as part of this.Report

        • North in reply to InMD says:

          You’re on step 3. The Dems were there about four days ago. They’re on step eight right now.

          “This is not a traditional negotiation, where we expect to come up with a bipartisan compromise on the border. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental”
          Senator CornynReport

        • Michael Drew in reply to InMD says:

          If Republicans take less than the substantial majority – 90% – of what they want on policy here – if they just take a little money and a few tweaks that the administration can work around – it is like saying they don’t really believe in what they want. It’s a concession on the merits of their principles. There’s not going to be some later time or more important issue that Democrats *will* accede to attaching fundamental immigration reform to. Republicans will have simply backed off their conceptual policy reforms and those will now be deemed unreasonable and off the table.

          Immigration (asylum) needs to be fundamentally overhauled. This is the time.

          You can say F that, but then you are saying F Ukraine. That’s the GOP’s position.

          As to Israel, I am quite sure a bill to just do Israel aid could move if Biden were open to it.Report

          • North in reply to Michael Drew says:

            Sure but they aren’t trying for an overhaul that can pass. They control the House, that is all, and they barely control that. This isn’t them pushing for immigration policy to move rightward a bit in recognition that they control the house- it’s a demand for complete capitulation. Using that leverage to force the party that controls the Presidency and the Senate to put the GOP’s preferred policies into place as if they have a trifecta is beyond delusional. The country has never worked like that before as far as I can think of (seriously, have the Dems ever pulled this kind of extortion?) and there’s no reason for the Dems to ever give in to it otherwise they’ll never be able to govern again regardless of the outcome of elections.

            Heck, the GOP could probably get quite a lot. Biden is not exactly an open border fanatic. He’s probably trade some serious money and policy concessions using this deal as cover but Biden couldn’t give the GOP everything they want for nothing in return even if they were a sane party. And on top of that they are utterly fruit loops at the moment.Report

            • Michael Drew in reply to North says:

              >> This isn’t them pushing for immigration policy to move rightward a bit in recognition that they control the house- it’s a demand for complete capitulation

              That’s true! Biden has said – literally said! – he is looking to make significant concessions on the border to get a foreign wars package to move. That’s simply an overt announcement of desperation. When that’s the signal, you don’t go small.

              >> They control the House, that is all, and they barely control that

              I mean… they control the Senate in that they decide what doesn’t pass.

              So as long as those other parties are fine with nothing passing, they don’t control the Senate. But then when they do need something to pass, the GOP does control the Senate.

              They can leverage what the other sides needs to pass to get what they don’t *want* to pass.

              Their immigration changes can pass. All that’s necessary is that a few Democrats and Chuck Schumer decide Ukraine and Israel aid are important enough.

              There are easily 10 Democratic senators who don’t actually view the proposed changes as abhorrent in concept. They know the problems with asylum and parole. The changes may go further than they’re comfortable with but they acknowledge the basic need for the changes, and going further than you want on one thing to get something else is legislating.Report

              • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

                …The main sticking point is this question of “parole.” I encourage people to look into it.

                Biden is doing things with this provision that no president has ever done. The basic demand is for Biden to just go back to governing immigration the way Obama or Clinton did. And older Democratic senators by and large understand this and know it’s not fruit loops.Report

              • North in reply to Michael Drew says:

                That’s a really interesting analysis Michael. Is there an article or something you’d recommend that details the difference between what the Biden admin has been doing on this vs what the Obama or Clinton admins did? I’d love to read more on it.Report

              • Michael Drew in reply to North says:

                Yes!

                Remarkably thorough from CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-parole-migrants-us-expansion-biden/

                A not-exquisitely-charitable take on what the administration is doing is using this authority at a scale it was not conceived for, in order to smooth migration into the country for people whose entry there is not a political consensus in favor of the policy argument for, in a way meant to ease the visible (and humanitarian, safety, and security) effects of such migration commonly described in media as “the border crisis.”

                That is… securing (legal because they deem it so by aggressive interpretation of the authority’s domain) entry for large numbers of the migrants seeking it in a way that doesn’t create the “border chaos” optic that is hard to sustain poltically.Report

              • InMD in reply to Michael Drew says:

                This AP is a bit briefer but it says the 3 issues are the parole matter, asylum, and a specific rapid deportation authority.

                https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-congress-humanitarian-parole-asylum-trump-5b5808183c1642bae520b7d9456cc36d

                What it doesn’t say is what the specific changes would be. I’m in agreement that the asylum situation has become a serious problem and it would be good for Democrats to help close that loop. The parole thing is harder to say. A number of these examples (Afghanistan in particular) strike me as exactly what it’s for. We destroyed that country for 20 years and part of leaving needs to be willingness to resettle those that helped our occupation, ill advised as it was. Other cases in central America and the Caribbean seem less justified.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

                We have no less responsibility for the f’d up countries in central and south America then we do for Afghanistan. Maybe even more since we used them for decades in proxy wars against the Russians.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

                I think reasonable people can disagree on that. On the one hand we were a disruptive force in Latin America during the Cold War. On the other I don’t think broad based development and law and order problems which may never be resolved spurring back door mass economic migration are consistent with the intent of the power.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Michael Drew says:

                Oh there’s a political consensus argument for that level of entry – it just happens to be economic nd would force us to grapple with all sorts of wage/labor intersections.

                Nothing changes until businesses segments that employ all these people want it to change.Report

          • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

            Just in case anyone was puzzled – the above was meant to be a separate, original comment on the article, not a reply to InMD. I was on my phone and didn’t see that I had clicked reply rather than comment.Report