Commentary:
Looking out my office window, I can see Mt. Cristo Rey, where Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua converge on the border. Much of this mountain is rocky and steep, and unsuitable for border fencing. It also is an area where many migrants choose to cross, and where many have perished from the elements or accidents. As I stare out at Mexico, I am aghast at the failure of the recent so-called border bill that which had the objective of addressing border security and immigration.
The objective of this bill was to address a wide variety of issues that Congress has failed to address for decades, including immigration, border security, amnesty, and tougher enforcement – all issues that both the Democrats and Republicans have either avoided or used for political purposes. The crafting of the bill was encouraging, as it was put together by a Republican (Senator James Lankford-Oklahoma), a Democrat (Chris Murphy-Connecticut), and an Independent (Krysten Sinema-Arizona). While the bill’s contents were not going to 100 percent satisfy everybody in Congress, it was a good effort to address the border.
The $181 billion dollar bill would have allocated about $20 billion for more enforcement personnel at the border, along with supplies and equipment for additional border security. This is what the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection have been advocating for years. This “boots on the ground” element of the bill garnered the support of the Border Patrol Union.
The bill also would have provided the Executive branch with emergency authority to take action at the border when surges of migrants occur. This action could include restricting northbound passage of migrants seeking asylum, and or deporting migrants without processing their asylum claims if personnel are overwhelmed or processing centers are full. It also would have prohibited migrants who cross the U.S. border between ports of entry from seeking asylum. The bill provided funding for increased detention capacity, allowing the government to maintain at least 50,000 detention beds available, a 47 percent increase from previous years.
For the first time since 1990, the bill would have increased the number of visas available for migrants seeking to come to the U.S. The U.S. has an aging population, and many Americans no longer want to work laborious jobs such as construction, mining, or agriculture. Our country also needs talent from across the world that can help keep us competitive in biosciences, high-tech, engineering, and research.
The bill would have sped up the asylum process and raised standards by which a migrant can apply for asylum. While this is not a total revamping of the outdated U.S. asylum system, it was a good step forward. Additionally, the bill would provide funding for more judges and court personnel to hear asylum cases. It is not unusual for an asylum seeker to wait years for their case to be heard. The bill also expedited work visas for migrants waiting for their case to be heard.
Don’t the provisions in this bill address exactly what everybody worries about or complains about border security and immigration? Sadly, the bill was stillborn immediately, with Republican lawmakers criticizing Senator Lankford for having the gall to negotiate with Democrats to address the border situation. Some Republicans criticized the bill without first reading its contents. Former president Trump stated about Lankford, “It think this is a very bad bill for his career and especially in Oklahoma,” a call for backlash against the senator in his home state. No major Republican leader supported the bill, except Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who when he saw Republican opposition mount, told his colleagues that it was alright to vote against it.
Because of recent progressive influence, the Democratic party has shied away from endorsing policies that would increase enforcement or deportations. President Biden has been widely criticized by people in both parties for failing to act decisively on the border situation. In this bill, the Democrats stepped forward and put this approach aside and agreed to stronger enforcement including more law enforcement, deportations, and stiffer asylum requirements. This is the political ammunition that Republicans have been using against Democrats when they call them soft on border security. By virtue of this bill, the Republicans supposedly had the Democrats where they wanted them. On the contrary, the Republicans handed the Democrats their own political ammunition to campaign against the Republicans in the upcoming elections.
What happened with the border bill is akin to the Democrats calling the Republicans’ bluff on border security, and the Republicans backing down. It is crystal clear that the political needs of the party are more important than those of the nation. Trump wants insecurity at the border to continue because it is politically valuable to use this as a political football in his attempt to get reelected. If he does get reelected, are we going to see elements of the border bill repackaged as a Republican effort? Going forward, any politician who came out against the bill has no moral ground going forward to complain about border security or immigration.
Jerry Pacheco is President of the Border Industrial Association. Pacheco's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of KRWG Public Media or NMSU.