The Senate bill to bolster border enforcement and provide funding to Ukraine and Israel has essentially collapsed.
House Republicans opposed it even before the text was available and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had been a staunch er, said Tuesday the measure has no chance of approval.
Even if the bill had gone on to a House vote, the level of Democratic was also up in the air. That was underscored by the reaction to the measure from the four Democrats in San Diego’s House delegation, who are split over the measure.
Before the bill turned into an apparent dead letter, Reps. Sara Jacobs and Juan Vargas of San Diego were critical of the proposal. Rep. Mike Levin of San Juan Capistrano said he was encouraged by the bill and Rep. Scott Peters of San Diego said he ed it.
Unlike the others, Rep. Darrell Issa, the delegation’s only Republican, did not respond to questions about the bill The San Diego Union-Tribune posed to all five on Monday.
He apparently hadn’t made many, if any, public comments on the substance of bill, but did offer this observation late Monday on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“It’s interesting how many advocates for open borders are ing a bill supposedly about border security,” he wrote.
Never mind that, despite all the problems with immigration policy, it is not an open border between the U.S. and Mexico — nor does Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator on the bill, among other Republicans, one.
After the McConnell news broke, a spokesperson for Issa said in an email that the bill was dead in the Senate.
The $118 billion national security bill combines tens of billions of dollars in U.S. funding for Ukraine and Israel with border security and immigration provisions.
The bill would provide $20 billion for the Homeland Security, Justice and State departments, as well as other agencies, to hire thousands of Border Patrol agents and asylum officers, increase detention capacity, and invest in technology to combat trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs. The bill would make obtaining asylum more difficult.
It wasn’t a comprehensive measure as in past failed attempts, which combined stronger enforcement with sweeping proposals to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants already in the United States, as well as legal avenues for some incoming migrants.
But there are components aimed at reducing immigration backlogs by awarding visas that could put certain migrants on a pathway to citizenship, according to The New York Times.
The following questions were sent via email to the offices of the San Diego region’s five of Congress:
- Does the representative the Senate-negotiated border/foreign aid package?
- If not, why not?
- Are there any changes they would like to make or do they have other comments about it?
Here are the responses received Monday in full:
Jacobs: “I’m disappointed that the Senate National Security Supplemental was clearly drafted by those who don’t represent the border and understand the challenges our communities face. Dismantling our asylum system and reverting to failed Trump-era immigration policies will make our immigration system more chaotic, backlogged, and burdensome — and it won’t make us any safer.
“San Diego has shown that with the proper resources, we can keep our country safe, strengthen our workforce, and treat migrants and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect they deserve. I will continue to push for proven solutions that would border communities, including San Diego, like expanding legal pathways for people to come and remain in the United States, relieving the strain on our asylum processing system, increasing funding for programs like the Shelter and Services Program, and addressing the root causes of migration.”
Levin: “I’m reviewing the Senate bill text and am encouraged by the bipartisan negotiation that includes provisions to improve fentanyl interdiction, increase pathways to citizenship and allow for additional visas, provide to our local partners through critical Shelter and Services Program (SSP) funding, and provide assistance to our allies abroad.”
Peters (through a spokesperson): “Rep. Peters s it. (The bill) includes his Afghan Adjustment Act which will create a pathway to a permanent legal resident status for our brave Afghan partners who assisted us for two decades of war, as well as his Temporary Family Visitation Act which would ease obstacles for travelers looking to temporarily enter the United States to visit family.
“While this deal is not perfect and more can be done to shore up our legal immigration system and protect the rights of those seeking a better life in the United States, it is a good step to fix the problems at the border and allow more people to enter the country legally. Rep. Peters called it pure hypocrisy that House Republican leadership has deemed this bill dead on arrival in the House. They demanded a border deal to move funding for Ukraine, and now that we have one, they want to kill it because their leader, Donald Trump, is asking (them to).
“Finally, Rep. Peters lobbied for this package to include funds to fix the cross-border wastewater crisis due to the connection to the border and the national security threat to our troops who train in those waters. While they did not make it into the Senate deal, there are future opportunities to move these funds forward before the government funding deadline and Rep. Peters will continue to fight for them.”
Vargas: “Unfortunately, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2024 appears to force us to choose between ing our allies or shutting our doors to the most vulnerable. The United States can and should lead by protecting our national security and ing our foreign allies, while also implementing humane and comprehensive immigration reform that will help fix our broken immigration system.
“I have seen firsthand how outdated and cruel immigration policies harm those seeking a better life, which is why I am closely reviewing the bill.”
The bill was the biggest piece of legislation before Congress so far this year — and perhaps for the entire year. The failure of the proposals could have huge domestic, foreign and political implications.
Most of the San Diego County delegation appeared to give serious thought to the measure, even if the odds were against them ever voting on it.
