Jamiesfeast – Arizona’s two senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly, usually avoid directly criticizing Republicans. However, on Wednesday, they reached a breaking point and condemned the right for derailing the Senate’s bipartisan border security deal.
The number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border has reached a record high, with an average of over 262,000 crossings in the past three months. In an effort to find a solution to this issue, a bipartisan working group consisting of Senators James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma; Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut; and Sinema, an independent, has introduced a bill that has garnered support from border community leaders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the border patrol’s union.
Former President Donald Trump strongly criticized the deal, describing it as “horrendous” and a “great gift to the Democrats.” He made the border a central issue of his 2024 campaign, further undermining support for the agreement among Senate Republicans who had previously backed it. Consequently, the bill failed to pass on Wednesday with a vote of 49-50.
“This is exactly what infuriates people about Washington,” remarked Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona in an interview with Newsweek. “Yesterday and today have been the two most dreadful days I’ve witnessed since the events of January 6th.”
Ever since he took office in December 2020, Kelly has been advocating for action at the border. Even during his time in Congress, he didn’t shy away from making high-profile criticisms of President Joe Biden.
According to the Arizona Democrat, it is evident that a significant number of senators prioritize politics over finding solutions. They made a deliberate political choice to please Trump by voting against the bill.
Democrats made notable concessions to reach a border agreement, relinquishing their longstanding demand for border enforcement policy to be accompanied by substantial immigration reforms. However, this move resulted in the loss of support from certain progressive Democrats who believed that the bipartisan bill exceeded their expectations.
The proposed border deal aimed to revamp the asylum system by increasing the standard of fear and granting asylum officers the authority to review claims, rather than solely relying on immigration judges. Supporters argue that this provision would play a vital role in tackling the overwhelming immigration court case backlog, which currently stands at over 3 million.
Moreover, the bill aimed to put an end to the practice known as “catch and release.” Under this policy, individuals who enter the country illegally surrender themselves to border patrol, file for asylum, and are then allowed to reside in the United States while waiting for their case to be processed. However, if there were an average of 5,000 illegal border crossings in a span of seven days, border authorities would no longer be obligated to process the asylum claims made by these individuals.
“We were given the chance to address the ongoing nightmare that my state has endured for more than four decades,” Sinema expressed in a heartfelt speech on the Senate floor. “However, in a surprising turn of events, my Republican colleagues had a change of heart within a mere 24 hours of our bill’s release. It seems that they prefer empty rhetoric over tangible solutions. Apparently, border security is not truly a concern for our nation’s security; it is merely a convenient talking point during election campaigns.”
Many Republicans disagreed with the bill primarily because of the threshold of 5,000 that would activate the authority to deny entry to asylum seekers who crossed the border illegally. They argued that this authority could have been triggered by the president at a lower threshold of 4,000 if desired. Some opponents of the bill mistakenly misrepresented the provision as allowing 5,000 illegal crossers to enter the U.S. daily.
Lankford stood up against his conservative colleagues and fervently supported the bill until its final moments. In his passionate speech on the Senate floor, he recognized that the bill may not be flawless, but he stressed that the current situation is simply unsustainable. He pointed out that politicians in Washington were unnecessarily making the issue political and called on his fellow lawmakers to listen to the guidance of the National Border Patrol Council and endorse the bill.
Lankford stressed that the comprehensive 370-page agreement encompassed provisions for funding the border wall, boosting the number of agents, and enhancing border technology. Additionally, it aimed to expand the capacity of detention beds for migrants and introduce a substantial number of employment- and family-based visas. Moreover, it sought to provide pathways to citizenship for Afghan allies who were admitted to the country after the Taliban assumed control.