Ok, it's completely reasonable to stop allowing migrants to flood in across you know what AND to stop funding a pointless war in Ukraine which is needlessly killing/displacing millions.
But it's hard to take when this policy singularly comes out of the mouth of Donald. I mean he's nuts? Right?
Plus he's going to be a lame duck President. How's he now shaping policy before he's even elected? I'm flummoxed.
Trump’s Hard-Line Border Stance Endangers Funding for Ukraine
McConnell acknowledges election-year challenges for any agreement on immigration
By Siobhan Hughes and Lindsay Wise, WSJ
Updated Jan. 25, 2024 6:38 pm ET
WASHINGTON—Top Senate Republicans indicated Congress might have to find a new path to secure funding for Ukraine, as former President Donald Trump has worked to erode GOP support for a monthslong effort seeking to pair aid for Kyiv with changes to U.S. border law.
Trump has rejected any compromise on immigration policy, privately telling some GOP senators that he is upset Republicans would give President Biden a win on a signature Trump issue, and some GOP lawmakers have signaled that they don’t want to strike a deal headed into the 2024 presidential contest. Other lawmakers of both parties angrily rejected the notion that election-year politics and Trump’s influence should derail the effort.
In a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Wednesday to focus on Ukraine funds, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) addressed the quandary, saying that the politics related to the border had shifted and that he didn’t want to do anything to harm GOP presidential candidates’ chances, a person familiar with the matter said.
The remarks, earlier reported by Punchbowl News, touched off confusion on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers debated whether McConnell was merely offering an appraisal or instead beginning the process of unhitching Ukraine aid from border talks. McConnell and other senators said talks were continuing, with some acknowledging the Senate was approaching a make or break moment.
“We’re still trying to get an outcome,” McConnell told reporters Thursday when asked if he was pulling the plug on border talks. Asked whether Trump’s opposition to the broader supplemental spending bill was killing chances for the foreign-aid package, McConnell said that was “not anything new.”
The Biden administration has sought $110.5 billion to deal with Ukraine, Israel and other foreign hot spots.
Lawmakers had mixed reads on his comments. What McConnell “was talking about was sort of what he saw as the political challenges of moving forward,” Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) said. “He wasn’t waving the white flag at all.” Cornyn said that Trump is “an important voice, but we have a job to do.”
But Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) said he felt McConnell’s tone shifted significantly in the Wednesday meeting. He said McConnell noted that Trump doesn’t want there to be a border bill, and that makes it very complicated.
“Maybe I misheard it. It sounded to me like he was pouring cold water on it,” Hawley said.
Still, it was clear that any agreement regarding illegal immigration was hanging on by a thread, with little sign that a breakthrough was imminent.
“Something’s got to give here,” said Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), the Senate Republican Whip. “We’re at a critical moment, and we’ve got to drive hard to get this done. If we can’t get there, then we’ll go to plan B.” He said that things should come into greater focus within the next 24 to 48 hours.
Democrats have proposed $110.5 billion in foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and other foreign hot spots. Of that, about $60 billion is related to Ukraine.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R., S.D.) said that passing Ukraine aid without border-policy changes would be challenging. “I really don’t see a path forward without border security,” he said. He said McConnell told senators Thursday that his opinion was that the border changes and funds for Ukraine and Israel should be kept together as a package. “I understand it may have been misreported somewhat,” Rounds said McConnell said.
Border talks started late last year, focusing on sharply curtailing asylum claims and narrowing a power called humanitarian parole, as border arrests have surged to record levels. Many Republicans have voiced open skepticism of the emerging framework.
Trump, who won the Iowa and New Hampshire GOP presidential contests this month, has encouraged Republicans to accept nothing short of a total win. Associated Press surveys showed immigration as the top issue in those states for Republican voters.
“We need a Strong, Powerful, and essentially ‘PERFECT’ Border and, unless we get that, we are better off not making a Deal,” Trump said on social media on Thursday.
In a separate post, Trump encouraged states to send National Guardsmen to help Texas protect its border with Mexico. Texas officials are locked in a legal fight with the Biden administration over removing concertina wire the state installed to deter migrants from crossing part of the Rio Grande.
Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.), the lead Republican negotiator, said talks were continuing and acknowledged that presidential politics would add additional pressure. “It is a huge election issue and it kind of gets sucked into all of this conversation,” he said, adding he hasn’t spoken to Trump.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), another principal negotiator, said the next several days will be critical. “I hope we don’t live in a world today in which one person inside the Republican Party holds so much power that they could stop” a bipartisan bill, he said.
At the center of the tension is a proposal under discussion to require federal officials to stop migrants from applying for asylum at the border, effectively turning them away, if the number of illegal crossings a day hit 5,000. Some Republicans worried that amounted to legitimizing 1.8 million illegal crossings a year—a policy that they worried would carry damaging political implications and would hamper a future president from closing off the border sooner.
Some recent daily totals have surpassed 10,000. In 2019, former Obama administration Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson had said that 1,000 apprehensions a day would overwhelm the country’s capacity.
Sen. Todd Young (R., Ind.) said that Republican critics should wait to review the details of any deal before judging it.
“My understanding of it is that it could result in a cut in border traffic of up to a half, and if indeed that’s the case, it’d just be a remarkable success for the Republican minority in the Senate having made this negotiation possible,” Young said. “So I can’t conceive of us leaving this behind right now for crass political reasons.”
To reinforce his point, Young said that McConnell had read quotes in the meeting from a 2018 Trump speech in which the former president lamented the fact that Democrats would never agree to any improvements in border law.
McConnell hadn’t originally wanted to connect border-policy changes to Ukraine aid. But he bowed to Republicans in his conference who insisted on tying the two together, arguing that the U.S. couldn’t pour money into protecting another country’s borders without protecting its own.
Congress approved more than $110 billion for Kyiv in 2022—the year that Russia initiated its invasion. But last year Congress turned off the spigot, after Republicans won control of the House and two successive GOP speakers catered to a wing of the party, encouraged by Trump, that questions U.S. involvement in Ukraine, citing the mounting price tag and a perceived lack of transparency about U.S. goals.
McConnell has stayed focused on Ukraine even among grumbling in his party. On Tuesday, as other GOP Republican leaders called on Democrats to give ground on border policy, McConnell focused on national-security elements. “I don’t want to lose track of what the rest of the supplemental [bill] is about—the world is basically at war,” he said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Thursday that he didn’t want to hear any more criticism about the border effort from Republicans who don’t have a better alternative.
“Here’s what I hate: I hate when people won’t try, but just criticize.”
Write to Siobhan Hughes at Siobhan.hughes@wsj.com and Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com
Comments