We Need A Grand Bargain On Ukraine and Israel
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt at funding aid to Ukraine. Although the party is split over whether to continue helping the beleaguered nation defend itself against Vladimir Putin’s invading armies, even pro-Ukraine Republicans voted against the aid package citing concerns about the border… the US border, that is.
Unlike Ukraine’s border, which was violated by an invading army, the American border is violated by migrants seeking jobs and asylum seekers. This concerns Republicans far more than a Russian horde seeking to subjugate an ally.
That’s not a totally unreasonable position. After all, the US should have control over its borders, and to a great extent, it does. The fact that Border Patrol agents are interdicting record-high numbers of illegal border crossers is de facto proof that the border is not undefended. One problem is that most border critics don’t understand the process the law dictates must take place after that. A second is that the large numbers of migrants are overwhelming facilities that house detainees.
The fact is that the federal government has to follow the law and illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are entitled to due process. Simply dropping the illegals across the border would be illegal in itself, and a number of court decisions have limited the federal government’s discretion in handling immigrants.
The Republican position is not unreasonable, but it does reflect incorrect priorities. The immigration issue has been with us for half a century. It’s not going to go away anytime soon and, for that matter, Republicans have killed numerous deals that would have secured the border. If Republicans were truly concerned about the border rather than just using it as a wedge issue, we could have had a reform bill that included border security 20 years ago.
To the contrary, the situation in Ukraine is a crisis. People are fighting and dying and if Ukraine’s stocks of ammunition and other supplies run low, it will give the Russians an advantage. The Ukrainian war is an artillery-intensive war and already shells are in short supply due to both the high rate of use and the constraints of resupply, especially since the beginning of the Gaza war. A shortage of artillery shells translates directly into more lives lost, and in fact, thousands of artillery shells originally slated for Ukraine have gone to Israel.
The obvious solution to the problem is to make a deal to get things done. If Democrats need to throw some money at the border to get Ukraine the help it needs to stay free, then do it. Ironically, a border security package would probably help Democrats to some extent because border security is a Democratic weakness.
However, a big problem is that there are too many moving parts to the immigration crisis to solve in an ad hoc bill. We really need to overhaul the whole system with a bill that enhances border security, tracks visa overstays, streamlines the legal immigration process, addresses the problem of illegals who are here and have no home to return to, and a myriad of other issues. The kicker is that neither side is strong enough to pass its own preferences over the objections of the other and extremists keep shooting down compromises.
Nevertheless, the two sides should be able to agree on some funding to ease the humanitarian crisis while agreeing to hold talks on immigration reform. Putting together such a bill would take too long for Ukraine and Israel and border security doesn’t fit into a foreign aid bill anyway, but make a freaking deal!
I said the same thing when Democrats blocked aid to Israel a few weeks ago. I argued that they should tie aid to Israel and Ukraine together to make sure that Republicans wouldn’t try to cut off the Zelensky government. Make a deal and get it done.
But wait! The new bill includes aid to both Ukraine and Israel as well as Taiwan. So when Republicans block the Ukraine aid bill they are actually blocking aid to Israel and Taiwan as well, although I haven’t heard Democrats use this line of attack.
There should be makings of a deal here. I’m sure that a majority of Congress wants aid to either Israel and/or Ukraine. As long as there aren’t enough people willing to sabotage the entire bill to keep the other side from getting what it wants, there should be a solution. It has long been axiomatic that the only thing that both parties can agree on is to spend more.
In the meantime, however, Vladimir Putin and his cronies are celebrating. Literally. The Daily Beast reported that Putin supporters took the airwaves on Russian television to cheer the Republican vote.
Echoing what Republicans said after the fall of Afghanistan and Vietnam, Roman Golovanov noted, “This will be a great revelation to other countries. It is even more dangerous to be a friend of the United States than its enemy. In the end, they will abandon you, leaving nothing but the scorched earth on your territory.”
That’s a sad observation but somewhat true, and it’s a bipartisan phenomenon. If you doubt that fact just look back to Donald Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds and The Former Guy’s own plan to cut and run in Afghanistan, including an order for an immediate withdrawal from both Afghanistan and Syria after his 2020 election loss.
There is a large isolationist contingent in the Republican Party which is exemplified by the online conversation I recently had in which a MAGA supporter called Nikki Haley a “warmonger” because she wanted to support Ukraine. He had no similar criticism of Putin. In another example, Mike Lee (R-Utah) posted in support of Israel and was beset with MAGA supporters in the comments who were opposed to aiding both Ukraine and Israel. That’s isolationism in action and as I’ve said before, it’s an example of the ongoing political realignment.
As another MAGA supporter said, “The downfall of Ukraine means the downfall of Biden! Two birds with one stone!”
No, wait. That was America analyst Dmitry Drobnitsky on Russian television, but it’s a sentiment that many MAGA voters could get behind. Quite a few would be willing to sacrifice Ukraine to take down Joe Biden, especially given the country’s role in Trump Impeachment I.
But I don’t think they will get the chance. There are still enough foreign policy realists in the Republican Party that a bipartisan coalition should be able to get the aid bill across the finish line. They just want to extract concessions first.
Is that cynical? Sure, but it’s how the game is played in Washington, and if Republicans don’t play ball, they’ll likely be the target of Putin’s praise during next year’s campaign as Russian forces grind their way through Ukraine. That might help with Tucker Carlson but probably not with voters who matter.
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
I guess they’re “isolationist” in the way that nazi sympathisers described themselves as “isolationist” in the early years of WW2.Report
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
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
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
Like I said – there’s ALREADY a $800 MILLION plus up for border security in the President’s budget request. if the GOP were serious they could pass that and be done.
That they won’t tells me they are not at all serious – just trying to delay and dissemble and distract.Report
Sure but if that’s the case, and it may well be, it just means nothing is happening no matter what the Democrats do. All things equal I’d rather try.Report
I’m saying they did try with the Prez Bud submission. Which is clearly being ignored. Why should they try more?Report
Because Ukraine needs the aid now. No other reason.Report
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
Also true as best I can tell. Again, if it really was about funding there is a Democratic proposal on the legislative table.Report
If that’s the case I wouldn’t give anything substantive on the policy front as part of this.Report
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
Gotcha. In that case F them.Report
Agreed.Report
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
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
>> 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
…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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thank you Michael.Report
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