The legislation would allocate $20 billion for border security
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, disapproved of the Senate’s bipartisan $118 billion border security and foreign aid package after its text was revealed on Sunday night. He stated that the proposal is “even more unfavorable than anticipated” and asserted that it would face significant opposition in the lower chamber, likely rendering it “dead on arrival.”
The proposed legislation allocates $20 billion for border security, granting temporary authority to the federal government to expel migrants when the daily crossings surpass a specified threshold. The border security measures aim to eliminate “catch and release,” raise standards for asylum screenings, and expedite the processing of asylum claims.
Related Post: As Trump takes a huge lead in new polls, ‘Bidenomics’ falls flat with voters
The foreign aid segment of the agreement comprises $60 billion designated for Ukraine, $14.1 billion allocated for Israel, and assistance for allies in the Indo-Pacific region. Johnson announced his intention to introduce a standalone bill on the House floor next week, seeking a vote for $17.6 billion in emergency funding specifically for Israel.
“I’ve had a thorough look,” Johnson wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “This bill is more problematic than anticipated and falls far short of resolving the border crisis created by the President. As stated by the lead Democrat negotiator: ‘Under this legislation, the border never closes.’
“If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival,” declared the speaker.
Johnson’s statement aligns with comments he made before the Senate released the text of the agreement on Sunday night.
“If rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true, it would have been dead on arrival in the House anyway,” he wrote to House Republicans last month.
Shortly before Johnson’s statement, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, stated that the Senate bill would not receive a vote in the lower chamber. Scalise oversees the schedule in the House.
“Let me be clear: The Senate Border Bill will NOT receive a vote in the House,” Scalise wrote on X. “Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day, and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients — a magnet for more illegal immigration.”
Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, mentioned that a vote on the package in the Senate could take place as early as Wednesday.
Johnson’s statement follows months of efforts by Senate negotiators to reach a deal on addressing border security. Republicans insisted that any aid for Ukraine should be coupled with legislation addressing the illegal immigration crisis at the Southern Border.
In the weeks of the recent negotiations, Republicans grew skeptical of the bipartisan talks. They contended that President Biden already possesses the necessary resources to tackle the border situation and does not require new legislation. Some Republicans also expressed reluctance to support the border bill, fearing it could be perceived as giving Biden a political victory during an election year.
Former President Trump, using his social media platform Truth Social, urged GOP lawmakers not to support a border deal unless they secure “EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions & Millions of people.”
Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma and the lead GOP negotiator on the border deal responded to Johnson’s comments on the proposal. Lankford expressed confusion, questioning how the bill could be worse than House Republicans had anticipated.
“I’m a little confused about how it’s worse than they expected when it includes building the border wall, expanding deportation flights, increasing the number of ICE officers and border patrol officers, as well as detention beds. It also creates a faster process for deportations, addresses long-term issues and loopholes in asylum law, and provides emergency authority to halt the current chaos at the border,” Lankford told reporters.
“So, I’m a little confused,” he continued. “I’ll have to get with the Speaker’s team on that and find out what part would be ‘worse than what we expected’ based on the actual text, and hopefully, they will all have had an opportunity to read through the text.”
Before the release of the text, Lankford told US Newzs that the assertion that the bill would permit 5,000 illegal crossings per day was “the most misunderstood section of this proposal.”
“It would be absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day. This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day,” he stated during a January 28 appearance on “US News Sunday.”