Immigration advocates are nearing their wits’ end as Senate negotiators barrel toward a deal that would permanently change immigration law in exchange for another round of Ukraine funding.
The four Latino Democrats in the chamber — who are not part of the talks — have made clear that the fundamental precept being negotiated is unacceptable to them.
This week three of them, Sens. Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Alex Padilla (Calif.) and Bob Menéndez (N.J.) joined seven other Senate Democrats, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), to decry the talks.
“Using a one-time spending package to enact these unrelated permanent policy changes sets a dangerous precedent and risks assistance to our international partners. Any proposal considering permanent changes to our asylum and immigration system needs to include a clear path to legalization for long-standing undocumented immigrants,” they wrote.
But the negotiations have explicitly excluded any form of legalization, while tying border policy and wartime aid to Ukraine, two previously unrelated issues.
Top Stories from The Hill
That core concept has made waves among immigration advocates outside Congress and in the House, where the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and its allies have a larger contingent.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) called the Ukraine-border amalgam “an aberration.”
The Ukraine side of the deal is relatively simple, a question of opening the purse strings for the Biden administration to send much-needed aid to its Eastern European ally, a major priority for the administration, many Democrats and a fair share of Republicans.
On the border policy side, talks are revolving over changes to tighten asylum policy — a concession immigration advocates don’t take lightly — and curbing the president’s immigration parole powers, blowing a hole in President Biden’s border strategy.
Those are potential concessions immigration advocates would hope to avoid in tit-for-tat negotiations, let alone in a deal with no Republican concessions on immigration.
Republicans have so far been successful at portraying both Ukraine funding and their border policy proposals as national security priorities.
That’s making some Democrats nervous.
“It’s going to be ugly. I think the Senate effectively is going to sell us out. And when I say us out, it’s not just border communities. It’s not just the issue of asylum seekers and refugees attempting to be in this country,” said Grijalva.
“Allowing the Republicans to grab this narrative and to continue to attempt to poison with that narrative the upcoming election — because they see that it’s their issue, because they have no other issue — I think that’s what they sold out.”
Other House Democrats also said they were surprised by the nature of the talks, including that limitations on immigration would be swapped for something wholly unrelated.
“If we’re going to concede on policy, then the bill should be related or the concessions should be related to getting things on immigration and asylum reform and so forth. Not on issues of war or other funding,” one lawmaker said.
And advocates say the core issue is being overlooked: The proposed changes threaten to endanger human lives.
“The credible fear standard is being treated as a technical point that can be traded away, but in fact it’s the heart of the United States’ compliance with the Refugee Convention and if it’s out of reach, access to the entirety of the asylum system is blocked,” said Heidi Altman, director of policy at the National Immigrant Justice Center.
“Heightening it would be historic … are these lawmakers just OK with knowing that the U.S. will be regularly sending bona fide refugees back to harm?”
Lawmakers say those attitudes are par for the course.
“For 200 years, 250 years in this country, immigrants have been a good political piñata to swing at. You know, this country is made of immigrants. ‘We’re all immigrants but yet we detest immigrants,’” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.).
Regardless, the Senate negotiations have plowed on, attracting intense media attention.
The talks have been reported to include Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
In public, each of the negotiators has played a different role.
Tillis, for instance, has led the charge to include limits on parole; Cotton has been an advocate for including elements of H.R. 2, a House GOP border security bill that is a nonstarter with most, if not all, Democrats.
The mediatization of the talks has rankled some participants.
“There’s a big difference between people going to the press versus the people doing the work,” said a source close to the talks.
That work, say immigration advocates, is leading Democrats into a trap.
“My question is, what are Democrats getting in exchange for this type of deal? Democrats understandably and rightfully should support border security, a more orderly border – those are all important democratic values for voters,” said Andrea Flores, vice president for immigration policy and campaigns at FWD.us on a recent call with reporters.
“But that is not what they’re getting here. And also, they’re showing Democratic voters that they’re willing to go through a whole negotiation, compromise on our values and not get a single, pro-immigrant Democratic priority in exchange.”
A Democratic aide put it more succinctly.
“Democrats are the ones putting themselves in a situation to eat a pile of s—.”
But pressure to fund Israel and Ukraine is intensifying, and Republicans could end up forcing Senate Democrats to take a tough vote letting down either a foreign ally or a core constituency.
Meanwhile, the White House is pushing Congress to act on a supplemental to fund aid to Israel and Ukraine, Indo-Pacific security and border security.
“We want to see all four priorities taken up by Congress and all four funded. The reason why it’s a supplemental is because they’re all urgent. And as I said earlier, we’re running out of runway on Ukraine, and I would tell you the same thing for Israel,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters Friday.
The administration is likely to be more open to asylum changes than to parole restrictions, which would undermine President Biden’s border strategy.
Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday the administration had “had conversations with members of Congress” regarding the supplemental request.
Jean-Pierre panned H.R. 2, but left the question open on Senate negotiations, saying, “as it relates to negotiations that are currently happening in Senate, with senators — right? — both Republicans and Democrats, we’re just not going to negotiate from here.”
Still, it was the White House that originally mashed the four issues together in their supplemental request; the original border requests rankled some in the CHC, but to a much lesser degree than the current talks.
With Senate Republicans supercharging the border provisions, many CHC legislators had hoped to see the White House stepping in to set boundaries.
“I’m disappointed in the lack of communication and consideration that the White House is giving the Hispanic Caucus and our priorities,” said CHC Chair Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.).
“This is where I think the problem lies. Combining this aid was a mistake. And I think it should have never been done.”
With House GOP opposition to the supplemental almost a certainty, a Senate deal — if it is reached and passed — will face an uphill battle in the lower chamber.
And any bill that tightens border policy without loosening immigration laws seems likely to split apart the unity that has characterized House Democrats this congress.
For some Democrats, that split won’t be a surprise.
“They sold out the opportunity to actually stand for something a little more fundamental. And it’s — it’s not even disappointing, to some extent it’s expected from the center,” said Grijalva.
