Following months of discussion between Senate negotiators from both Republican and Democratic parties, a comprehensive, bipartisan bill was proposed. It aims to alleviate domestic and foreign national security concerns. Summing up to $118 billion, the bill provides for border policy provisions, aid to Ukraine, Israel, civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and “others caught in conflict zones,” and for allies to protect against the Chinese government in the Indo-Pacific region.
This act by Congress would be the first on immigration in decades. It was motivated by the recent dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from Mexico seeking asylum. The border provisions, in particular, would end the “catch and release” policies at the southern border to make the immigration screening process for migrants from Mexico seeking asylum tougher and more efficient. “Catch and release” policies are defined by Republican Senator of North Carolina Thom Tillis as “requir[ing] the government to release illegal immigrants into the United States' interior after detaining them for six months, if no other country accepts them for deportation.”
Though the bipartisan bill was approved by the Republican chief negotiator, Republicans are now threatening to back out of supporting the bill, claiming that the provisions for border security are not adequate. Some Republicans are going as far as saying that the bill will encourage immigration. This backlash is led by Republican candidate Donald Trump, who called the bill a “gift to the Democrats.”
To me, these events reveal the significant informal power Donald Trump has, despite not currently holding an elected position. The loyalty of the Republicans to his criticism of the bill is remarkable. This phenomenon can also relate to the power of affiliations in Congress. By privately meeting across chambers, Republicans decided to present a unified front against the bill, demonstrating how forming alliances in Congress is powerful.
We can also see the impact of social media on politics through these events, as the outrage from politicians regarding the increased polarization in Congress can be felt on social media directly by the public. Democrats criticize the sharp right turn Republicans took when the bill was revealed: Democrat Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii wrote on X: “They literally demanded specific policy, got it, and then killed it.” Democrat Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut calls this turn of events “embarrassing” for Republicans.
I believe this development additionally reflects what we learned about public opinion and its power in holding politicians accountable: even without elections but through polls, the public can influence their elected officials. Some Republican Congress members are hesitant to support the bill due to recent polls that reveal Republicans are less willing to send more money to aid Ukraine.
While the Senate is more willing to pass the bill than the House is, they still face a 60-vote threshold to break cloture, which would stop the minority’s ability to filibuster. This concept is also relevant to our course, as the Senate’s capacity to filibuster makes the vote for passing the bill more difficult than a simple majority vote and hence less democratic. Though the vote will take place Wednesday, 2/7, Republicans are now requesting more time to review the bill, and it is unlikely that the vote will be successful. Furthermore, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called the bill “dead on arrival,” capturing how, even if it passes in the Senate, more resistance will be found in the House. This development reinforces the polarization of Congress, which creates political gridlock that leads to stagnation in policymaking.
https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d
https://apnews.com/article/senate-border-package-asylum-ukraine-1dde30b223ebe854a48fde0497c9f227
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/04/senate-border-bill-israel-ukraine/
5 comments:
At this point I'm honestly not sure what they want, considering this was a bill that addressed the issues that the Republicans said they wanted in exchange for foreign aid. Plus, since this was a bipartisan bill (with the strictest border control policy yet) negotiated by Republican Senator James Lankford, it's honestly frustrating that the Republicans still refused to vote it through.
Additionally, as Carole mentioned, the fact that Donald Trump could strike down a bipartisan bill so easily definitely highlights the influence he still holds over the party. And, when considering why Trump would want to do this, it's hard not to think about the upcoming election: one of the primary concerns for voters right now is immigration, and it looks very bad on Biden if nothing is being done (regardless of the fact that it's Republican opposition holding legislation back right now). I don't think it's a far stretch to claim that this is "politics over policy" (especially looking back on the recent attempt to impeach Mayorkas), which is ridiculous considering actual lives are at stake.
I think this goes to demonstrate not only the divisions between the two parties, but also within a party itself. I don't believe that the Republican individuals who spent a great deal of time and effort to negotiate the bipartisan bill to their liking to begin with would suddenly change their mind simply because of a few words from Trump. Yes, there's no denying that Trump has significant influence on the actions of the GOP, but it seems more probable that its only over a portion of the party. This bill doesn't seem to be just pitting Democrats against Republicans, but exemplifying the cracks within groups in the Republicans.
I think you raise an interesting point about Trump's power as a symbolic figure even while he's not the president. I believe this stems from the fact that many, if not most, Republicans believe that Trump will win the presidential election, and for a while now he's already been somewhat of a symbolic leader of conservatives, if not the Republican party as a whole.
I think the high value that society places on loyalty, the heavily partisan polarized political climate, and simply people being disrespectful all combine to make it almost impossible for consensus and agreement nowadays. Instead of compromise, any win for the opposing party is seen as a loss for one's own political party. This is actually a common fallacy in business negotiation, where people wrongly believe that what they want is completely mutually exclusive with their opposition. Obviously, for some issues, such as abortion, this is true, but for other cases such as this bipartisan bill, the Republican party doesn't want to be seen in any context as giving the Democrats a win, at the expense of perhaps looking weak.
Thank you all for the interaction on my post.
I agree with Evan that Trump's power amongst Republicans stems from their assumption that he will be elected. Republicans in Congress are talking about waiting for the election results to see "what the people really want," which makes Biden's re-election seem less obvious. Conservatives have created this "Project 2025" in which they call for support to create an Iron Triangle in the government to promote the conservative agenda should Trump be re-elected. This likely helps his re-election cause, as it helps people imagine him already in power again.
I also agree with Rachel that it is frustrating to see the Republicans refuse to vote in a bill to push a political agenda. While elections are meant to help the people hold politicians accountable so that they promote the public interest, it sometimes feels like politicians are too focused on elections, which can actually hinder public interest.
You bring up an interesting point, Chin-Yi. I agree that these events with the bill does not paint Republicans in a favorable light. While they unified in their opposition to the bill, it is unclear what they were looking for in the border provisions, since as Rachel says, it was the strictest border control policy yet.
The mission statement of Project 2025: https://www.project2025.org/
I think you pointed out the complexities of the bipartisan negotiations and political dynamics highlighting the influence of figures like trump and the social media. I think it shows the divisions in the republican party and challenges in the government buildings. You also make some points on the public opinions and how they impact the elected officials and the procedural hurdles like the senate which all offers the insights into the legislative processes and governance challenges the difficulties of the politics.
Post a Comment