For months, with the support of the Biden administration, a bipartisan group of senators has been negotiating a compromise on new border security measures as part of a $110 billion supplemental spending bill that would also include aid for Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression. .
Yet even before the deal is unveiled, the great troublemaker Donald Trump has denounced it, shouting, “I'd rather have no bill than a bad one.” President Mike Johnson, whose Republican majority in the House of Representatives serves as a foil to Trump's presidential campaign, has suggested that if rumors about the measure are true, he will be “dead on arrival” in that chamber.
Trump's attempt to sabotage the deal even as it is still being negotiated suggests that he cares less about border security (a cause he has trumpeted in often ugly terms) than he does about being able to press President Biden on the issue during the election campaign, yes, As seems sadly likely, Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination. Trump seemed to acknowledge this when he said in a statement last week that a border deal now “would be another gift to radical left Democrats.”
To their credit, the senators involved in the negotiation are persevering despite Trump's meddling, and an agreement appears imminent. On Sunday, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, the chief Republican negotiator, defended the legislation, suggesting that some of his Republican colleagues don't understand what he would do. For his part, Biden has said that the bill under discussion would be “the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border that we have ever had in our country.”
Until the compromise is finalized and made public, it is difficult to assess whether it would go too far in restricting immigration, as a bill passed last year by the Republican-controlled House would. Senators have reportedly been discussing tightening standards for “credible fear” of persecution or torture used in initial interviews with migrants seeking asylum.
Apparently, the bill as it has evolved would not include drastic restrictions on the president's ability to admit immigrants under his humanitarian parole authority.
Biden also said the emerging legislation would give him “new emergency authority to close the border when it becomes overwhelmed.” (Johnson responded that Biden could close the border without legislation.) And the president reiterated his request for Congress to fund additional border patrol agents, immigration judges and asylum officers.
As important as securing the border may be, it should not be a prerequisite for an urgent injection of military aid to Ukraine. But Biden invited that link last year when he proposed increased funding for border security in connection with his request for assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
Although attention to Ukraine's struggle to defend itself has waned in recent months, continued American support sends an important message that Russian aggression elsewhere will not be tolerated. On Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that without supplemental US funding “everything that Ukrainians achieved and that we have helped them achieve will be in jeopardy.”
At least for now, assistance to Ukraine depends on progress in border security. Senators seeking a reasonable compromise on that issue are right to hold firm, despite resistance from Trump and his enablers in the House.
