Ukrainians may be wondering how in the world the survival of their country has come to depend on US border legislation. It's an ugly story, and the outcome bodes poorly for Ukraine.
Illegal immigration has been a problem in the US since the passing of Hart-Celler Act of 1965, effectively a prohibition on the use of seasonal migrant labor in the fields of California. Historically, Mexicans came north to pick California's crops and returned home after the season. The Hart-Celler Act prohibited this flow, making it harder for Mexicans to enter the country and thereby giving them an incentive to stay in the US permanently once they had crossed the border. This dynamic really took off in the 1970s and reached crisis proportions in the early 1980s.
The proposed solution was a broad amnesty for illegal immigrants in return for enhanced border enforcement, signed into law by President Reagan in 1986. The amnesty went through, but undocumented entry stayed high, indeed, it reached record levels, just as black market theory would suggest. Republicans felt that they had been duped -- they had -- and they have not forgotten it to this day. Any proposed border legislation is viewed through the lens of this 1980s debacle.
The magnitude of illegal entry into the US is enormous. Only twice before the Biden administration did border apprehensions -- a measure of illegal entry attempts -- exceed 1.6 million. By contrast, apprehensions averaged 2.1 million in the first three years of the current administration. Moreover, apprehensions historically led to expulsions under prior presidents. Today, apprehended migrants can simply claim asylum and be released into the US interior in most cases. The Senate's proposed Border Act of 2024 does not crack down on such illegal entry until a minimum of 5,000 daily apprehensions are reached, equal to more than 1.8 million apprehensions per year. This again would be a record for any year prior to the Biden administration.
Further, migrants without proper paperwork at official crossing points were historically turned away and hence deemed 'inadmissible'. Today, a migrant can walk up to passport control, claim asylum and be allowed into the country, even without any papers at all. This has led to a surge of such 'inadmissibles' -- today, really 'admissibles' -- to 500,000 in 2023, with a minimum of 511,000 proposed in the Senate's bill. Thus, the Biden administration is proposing undocumented entry of 2.3 million per year, 0.7 million higher than the pre-Biden record.
This is a large number in terms of overall demographics in the US. The UN estimates average annual US population growth at 1.5 million for the 2021-2024 period. By implication, undocumented admissions to the US will constitute more than total US population growth, around 50% more in fact.
The President has the authority today to radically reduce undocumented entries. While they would not be fully eliminated, apprehensions would fall to 1 million or even less. Nevertheless, the President wants these numbers high, in part to be 'nice' to poor migrants and in part because the administration hopes to convert them to Democratic voters over time. Open borders is therefore the de facto policy of the Biden administration.
Given this situation, House Republicans predictably rejected the Senate proposal out of hand.
But how they did it was a disaster.
The Act's Senate sponsor, Republican Senator James Lankford, was clearly played. The Democrats dragged the process out, making concession after concession, but never removing the discretionary enforcement rights of Secretary Mayorkas or the President. Without hard commitments, Democrats were well aware that the House Republicans would reject the bill outright.
This might not have been the end of the world had House Speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) not committed two rookie mistakes. By declaring the Senate bill 'dead on arrival', Johnson assumed responsibility for its failure. He instead should have stated that the bill had many merits, but would require specific adjustments to bring it closer to HR 2, the border bill passed by the House last May. If the Senate's bipartisan coalition would incorporate House requirements, the House would be prepared to pass a compromise bill. This would have shifted the burden back to the Democrats and, more importantly, bought some time.
The analyst community required a few days to assess the proposal for the disaster it appears to be and lend support to the Republican position. By committing too early, Speaker Johnson lost the news cycle and took the blame in the press. This led to near civil war in the Republican Party, with Senators "close to shouting at each other as tempers flared during the contentious discussion," as The Hill described it.
Meanwhile, the House Speaker has tied Ukraine funding to border legislation. The argument for withholding funding, other than a surreal faith in President Putin as the friend of MAGA, comes down to saving that $60 billion slated for Ukraine. And this will sound terrific until Ukraine starts losing, as appears to be the case with Andivka now. If the issue is framed as fiscal discipline, that's one thing. But when it will be framed as the US losing to Russia -- and make no mistake, that is how it will be depicted by the Kremlin, the Chinese and a host of other unsavory countries -- that $60 bn will have looked dirt cheap. By rejecting the border bill and thereby depriving Ukraine of funding, Mike Johnson and the Republicans have assumed responsibility for everything that could go wrong in Ukraine. If Ukraine falls, the Republicans will own it. Mike Johnson will own it.
The reality is this: If the Republicans vote for $60 bn in aid for Ukraine, some in the MAGA camp will grumble, but no one is going to vote for the Democrats because of it. On the other hand, if the Republicans lose to Russia -- and that is how it will play in the media and public opinion -- a great many Americans will not vote again for the Republican Party for a long time, and that will be Mike Johnson's legacy. Mike Johnson is again setting up the Republican Party for the Democrats' ultimate sucker punch.
Paradoxically, the President and the Speaker need each other. The administration's open borders policy is undermining the Democrats' political support with blacks and Hispanics. Meanwhile, the Republicans absolutely, positively do not want to be blamed for losing to Russia. Odd as it may seem, the Speaker and the President both need the other side to have someone to blame for policies which are not only necessary, but politically expedient. The President needs the appearance of coercion by the Republicans to avoid blame for a necessary tightening at the border, and Speaker Johnson needs to concede Ukraine funding to avoid assuming all blame for losing Ukraine.
None of this is simple, and perhaps none of it is even possible. For that reason, Ukraine's situation is looking increasingly dire. As matters stand, however, the President is putting re-election at risk by unleashing nearly 10 million undocumented migrants into the US during his first term. And Mike Johnson thinks toeing a Trumpian line is the path to success. He would be well advised to remember that Washington is littered with the bodies of Republicans who tied their reputations to the former president.