ReportWire

Tag: Border security

  • PolitiFact – After New Hampshire primary win, Donald Trump misleads on Democrats voting, immigration, border wall

    PolitiFact – After New Hampshire primary win, Donald Trump misleads on Democrats voting, immigration, border wall

    [ad_1]

    MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former President Donald Trump, who ran a nontraditional campaign in New Hampshire, beat his onetime ally Nikki Haley in the state’s Republican presidential primary.

    This was not the typical New Hampshire primary. Trump refused to debate his primary rivals for months, skipped the usual events other candidates attended and largely campaigned in front of his fans at large rallies. 

    Haley, a former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador during the Trump administration, also said she would no longer debate unless it was against Trump or President Joe Biden. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who campaigned sporadically in New Hampshire in the days leading up to the Jan. 23 election, dropped out just two days before the contest.

    Haley congratulated Trump and said she will continue her campaign. “New Hampshire is first in the nation. It is not the last in the nation,” she told her supporters. “This race is far from over.”

    In a victory speech, Trump misled about New Hampshire’s electoral process, how much border wall he built and the number of migrants crossing the border illegally. 

    “In the state, in the Republican primary they accept Democrats to vote.”

    Democrats are not allowed to vote in the Republican primary. They would have had to change their party affiliation on their voter registration in early October to vote in the Jan. 23 primary.

    Voters registered as “undeclared” — New Hampshire’s version of independents — are allowed under state law to vote in the primary. Those voters walk into the polls and can cast a Republican ballot. While some polls showed Haley was leading among undeclared voters, some said they would vote for Trump.

    The state has more undeclared voters than people registered with the Republican or Democratic parties. 

    “We have millions of millions of people flowing into our country illegally. We have no idea who the hell they are. They come from prisons, and they come from mental institutions.”

    Immigration officials have stopped people trying to cross the border about 8 million times during Biden’s presidency, but that doesn’t mean that 8 million people have come in. Because these encounter statistics track events, not individuals, if a person tries coming in three different times, that counts as three stops — even if it’s the same person. Also, millions of stops have led to expulsions and deportations. 

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection publishes data on how many people with criminal convictions or who are wanted by law enforcement are stopped by border authorities. Criminals encountered are not let into the country, “absent extenuating circumstances,” according to the agency’s website.

    We asked multiple immigration experts about this claim in September 2023, and they all said there was no evidence that people were coming to the border from prisons or mental institutions. PolitiFact previously examined a claim from a Republican representative who said Venezuela is sending its prisoners to the southern border and found no public reports or mentions of Venezuela’s government releasing prisoners and sending them to the U.S.

    Many immigrants arriving at the border turn themselves in to authorities and ask for asylum, which starts a screening process.

    “I built hundreds of miles of border wall.”

    The Trump administration built 458 total miles of primary and secondary barriers — the first and secondary impediments people encounter as they try to get into the U.S. But the majority of this fencing replaced older, smaller and dilapidated barriers. 

    Trump added about 50 miles of new wall in places where nothing existed, but not hundreds as he says.

    RELATED: Does the New Hampshire primary have a future? Impressions from PolitiFact’s reporting on the ground

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks of Donald Trump

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks of Nikki Haley

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border

    Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting for now razor wire that Texas installed along a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border that is at the center of an escalating standoff between the Biden administration and the state over immigration enforcement.

    The 5-4 vote clears the way for Border Patrol agents to cut or clear out concertina wire that Texas has put along the banks of the Rio Grande to deter migrants from entering the U.S. illegally. Some migrants have been injured by the sharp wire and the Justice Department has argued the barrier impedes the U.S. government’s ability to patrol the border, including coming to the aid of migrants in need of help.

    None of the justices provided any explanation for their vote. The one-page order is a victory for the Biden administration while the lawsuit over the wire continues.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had authorized the wire, one of a series of aggressive measures the three-term Republican has taken on the border in the name of curbing illegal crossings from Mexico. His spokesman said the absence of razor wire and other deterrents encourages migrants to risk unsafe crossings and makes the job of Texas border personnel more difficult.

    “This case is ongoing, and Governor Abbott will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border,” Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said.

    The White House applauded the order, which was handed down after a federal appeals court last month had forced federal agents to stop cutting the concertina wire.

    “Texas’ political stunts, like placing razor wire near the border, simply make it harder and more dangerous for frontline personnel to do their jobs,” White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández said.

    The concertina wire stretches for roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) near the border city of Eagle Pass, where earlier this month the Texas Military Department seized control of a city-owned park and began denying access to Border Patrol agents.

    Eagle Park has become one of the busiest spots on the southern U.S. border for migrants illegally crossing from Mexico. Abbott has said Texas won’t allow Border Patrol agents into Shelby Park anymore, having expressed frustration over what he says are migrants illegally entering through Eagle Pass and then federal agents loading them onto buses.

    Abbott also has authorized installing floating barriers in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass and allowed troopers to arrest and jail thousands of migrants on trespassing charges. The administration also is challenging those actions in federal court.

    In court papers, the administration said the wire impedes Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants as they cross the river and that, in any case, federal immigration law trumps Texas’ own efforts to stem the flow of migrants into the country.

    Texas officials have argued that federal agents cut the wire to help groups crossing illegally through the river before taking them in for processing.

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the administration. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas.

    ___ Weber reported from Austin, Texas. Associated Press writer Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Fact-checking Haley’s New Hampshire claims on fentanyl, education, Trump’s stance on retirement age

    PolitiFact – Fact-checking Haley’s New Hampshire claims on fentanyl, education, Trump’s stance on retirement age

    [ad_1]

    PETERBOROUGH, N.H.: On her 52nd birthday, Republican presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley called out former President Donald Trump on his age and for confusing her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 

    Haley told supporters at the Monadnock Center for History and Culture that during a Jan. 19 rally, Trump, 77, blamed her for failing to secure the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. 

    “He went on and talked about how I kept the police from going into the Capitol on Jan. 6, went on and repeated that I didn’t do anything to secure the Capitol. Let’s be clear,” Haley said. “I wasn’t in the Capitol on Jan. 6. I wasn’t in office on Jan. 6. He mentioned it three times, he got confused.”

    PolitiFact has fact-checked multiple misleading claims about Pelosi’s role regarding Capitol security on Jan. 6 and have found that this responsibility is shared, it is not solely the responsibility of the Speaker.

    At her Peterborough rally, Haley also repeated many claims we’ve previously fact-checked, including statistics about illegal immigration and fentanyl seizures

    One voter PolitiFact spoke to outside the event told us she valued accuracy and wanted to know the context behind claims she often hears from candidates, including Haley.

    Here are some of the statistics Haley cited, along with context.

    “We had more fentanyl cross the border last year, that would kill every single American.” 

    There’s no way to know how much fentanyl crossed the border into the U.S. But, we do know how much fentanyl was stopped from getting into the country — 27,000 pounds in fiscal year 2023, which ended Sept. 30.

    Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid up to 100 times more potent than morphine. Its potency is what makes it so lethal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency says 2 milligrams of fentanyl can be deadly for an adult. That means border officials seized more than enough fentanyl to kill every American (the estimated U.S. population is more than 333 million). 

    Yet, fentanyl’s lethality can vary based on its purity and a person’s height, weight and tolerance from past exposure, Timothy J. Pifer, director of the New Hampshire State Police Forensic Laboratory, told PolitiFact in 2019. 

    Also, just because enough fentanyl has been seized to kill every American does not mean every American has the same chance of dying of a fentanyl overdose, Dr. Andrew Stolbach, a toxicologist and emergency doctor at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, previously told us. 

    “That would assume that all that drug was somehow going to get into everybody,” Stolbach said. 

    Fentanyl overdoses are the “No. 1 cause of death for adults 18 to 45.”

    We rated a similar claim Mostly True.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects data on the leading causes of death nationwide, but it doesn’t keep tabs on which drugs cause the most fatalities. 

    Instead, fentanyl deaths fall under the broader category of “other synthetic narcotics,” Brian Tsai, a spokesperson with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Public Affairs Office told PolitiFact in April. Fentanyl comprises about 90% of the deaths in that narcotics category, Tsai said. 

    For the 18 to 45 age group, Tsai said, the leading cause of death was “accidents (unintentional injuries).” Within the several subcategories under “unintentional injuries,” “unintentional drug overdoses,” is the largest proportion, and “synthetic narcotics,” is the No. 1 category. 

    Medical experts previously told PolitiFact that although the statistic is likely right, data collection limitations make it difficult to know with certainty. 

    “Only 31% of eighth graders in our country are proficient in reading. Only 27% of eighth graders in our country are proficient in math.”

    Haley’s statistics are accurate.

    To compare test scores among the states, researchers and politicians typically point to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests public school students’ progress in a variety of subjects, including English and math. The national tests focus on certain grade levels and are administered every other year.

    In 2022, 31% of eighth grade students performed at or above the  NAEP proficient level on the reading assessment, which was 3 percentage points lower compared with 2019, the previous assessment year.

    In 2022, the percentage of eighth-grade students performing at or above the NAEP proficient level in mathematics was 26% .

    Martin West, an education professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Education Week in October 2022 that fourth and eighth grade reading and math NAEP scores “are down substantially.”

    “And they are down nearly everywhere: Every state (and the District of Columbia) saw scores drop by a statistically significant amount on at least one of the four tests administered this spring,” said West, a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP.

    Proficient on NAEP does not mean grade level performance — it’s significantly above that. “Using NAEP’s proficient level as a basis for education policy is a bad idea.”

    Trump “actually said he wants to raise the retirement age to 70.”

    Haley omits that Trump said this decades ago and this has not been his position for years.

    Trump co-wrote the book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in January 2000 as he considered a bid for president as a Reform Party candidate. Weeks later, Trump said he wouldn’t run, declaring the Reform Party a “total mess.”

    Fiscal responsibility was one of the book’s themes, and Trump warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out by 2030. (More than two decades later, the expected depletion date is around 2034, barring congressional action.)

    “We can also raise the age for receipt of full Social Security benefits to seventy. This proposal would not include anyone who is currently retired or about to retire,” the book said. 

    Trump wrote: “A firm limit at age seventy makes sense for people now under forty. We’re living longer. We’re working longer. New medicines are extending healthy human life.”

    RELATED: New Hampshire dispatch: Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and the tales of town halls

    RELATED: Trump’s misleading claim that Haley is seeking Democrats to ‘infiltrate’ New Hampshire’s GOP primary

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US says Texas barred border agents from entering park to try to save 3 migrants who drowned

    US says Texas barred border agents from entering park to try to save 3 migrants who drowned

    [ad_1]

    BROWNSVILLE, Texas — The U.S. Homeland Security Department said Saturday that Texas denied federal agents access to a stretch of border when they were trying to rescue three migrants who drowned.

    The federal government’s account came hours after U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar said the Texas Military Department and Texas National Guard “did not grant access to Border Patrol agents to save the migrants” Friday night. Mexican authorities recovered the bodies of a woman and two children Saturday across the border from Eagle Pass, Texas.

    “This is a tragedy, and the State bears responsibility,” said Cuellar, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee for homeland security, in a statement.

    Homeland Security echoed Cuellar on the broad outlines of what happened, saying the migrants drowned in the Shelby Park area of Eagle Pass. In a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, Texas acknowledged seizing the city park on the border but said the federal government had mischaracterized its actions and it was trying to resolve any disputes over access.

    “In responding to a distress call from the Mexican government, Border Patrol agents were physically barred by Texas officials from entering the park,” Homeland Security said in a statement. “The Texas governor’s policies are cruel, dangerous, and inhumane, and Texas’s blatant disregard for federal authority over immigration poses grave risks.”

    Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s office referred questions about the drownings to the Texas Military Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    On Friday, the Justice Department told the U.S. Supreme Court that Texas had taken control of Shelby Park and were not letting Border Patrol agents enter.

    The park lies in a major corridor for migrants entering illegally from Mexico and is the center of Abbott’s aggressive attempts to stop them, known as Operation Lone Star. Migrants are periodically swept away to their deaths by the current of the Rio Grande.

    Cuellar, who represents a Texas border district, said Mexican authorities alerted the Border Patrol to the distressed migrants struggling in the river late Friday. He said federal agents attempted to call and relay the information to Texas National Guard members at Shelby Park, without success. Agents then visited the entrance to the park but were turned away, according to the congressman, who said they were told a Guard member would be sent to investigate the situation.

    The 50-acre park is owned by the city, but it is used by the state Department of Public Safety and the Texas Military Department to patrol border crossings. Although daily crossings diminished from the thousands to about 500, state authorities put up fences and stationed military vehicles by the entry to deny access to the public and Border Patrol agents this week, according to a court filing.

    In its Supreme Court filing, Texas challenged claims that Border Patrol agents were denied access. They said the Border Patrol has scaled down its presence since summer, when the state moved its resources and manpower to the park.

    Federal agents were also granted access to the area to secure supplies, the state said.

    Cuellar said there was no immediate information available about the victims’ nationalities, relationship and ages. The Mexican government made no public statements.

    On Saturday members of the public held a ceremony at the park to mark the deaths of migrants in their region. Julio Vasquez, a pastor, said access was granted after making requests with the city and sharing pictures showing the entry still fenced up and guarded by members of the National Guard and military vehicles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Grothman falsely claims birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to migrant children born in the US

    PolitiFact – Grothman falsely claims birthright citizenship doesn’t apply to migrant children born in the US

    [ad_1]

    As negotiations on border security legislation happen in Congress, Republican U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., took to the House floor to decry the increase of immigrants into the U.S.

    During his speech Dec. 1, 2023, Grothman expressed contempt for ways foreign nationals and their children are illegally getting into and living in America.

    When listing legal ways migrants can become U.S. citizens, Grothman pivoted and said citizenship is incorrectly granted to their children born in America.

    “That’s not including children who are born here to parents who are not (legal) immigrants because right now our government, wrongly, is saying if you’re born in this country you’re automatically an American citizen,” Grothman said.

    Grothman didn’t respond to our inquiry seeking clarification and backup for the claim, which is known as “birthright citizenship.” But his statement aligns with that of some other conservatives, who argue birthright citizenship does not apply to children of people living in the country illegally. 

    Let’s consider the conditions of citizenship for those born in America. 

    The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship

    The most common path toward citizenship is by being born in the U.S. or U.S. territory. 

    This is laid out in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

    In layman’s terms, it means anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen.

    A number of Republicans have argued that because undocumented immigrants are not legally in the country, they should not fall under the 14th Amendment’s protections. Critics have pointed to the “subject to the jurisdiction” language in the clause, arguing this means only children of legal residents are natural-born citizens.

    However, two Supreme Court cases argue citizenship is given to children of undocumented immigrants. 

    In its 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court decided birthright citizenship applies to children of foreigners present on American soil regardless of their parent’s immigration status. The high court listed the only exceptions to birthright citizenship could be if the child’s parents are diplomatic representatives or enemies during a hostile occupation of a U.S. territory.

    This provides a direct contrast to Grothman’s claim and many GOP arguments that birthright citizenship wouldn’t apply to children of migrants.

    The issue came up again in the Supreme Court’s 1982 Plyler v. Doe case over a Texas education law that allowed the state to withhold education funds for educating the children of undocumented immigrants. In that case, the court reasoned undocumented immigrants are people “in any ordinary sense of the term” and are consequently afforded 14th Amendment protections and threw out the GOP jurisdiction argument.

    Because of the Ark and Plyler cases, former President Donald Trump and others, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have vowed to end the birthright citizenship practice via methods of executive order or constitutional amendments.

    Our ruling

    Grothman claimed “our government, wrongly, is saying if you’re born in this country you’re automatically an American citizen.”

    Grothman said it in the context of the immigration debate, suggesting birthright citizenship does not apply to children of migrants born in the U.S.

    The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil and an 1898 Supreme Court case held that citizenship is given regardless of the origin of one’s parents.

    We rate Grothman’s claim False.

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – The missing facts from Nikki Haley’s claim about border crossings and deportations under Joe Biden

    PolitiFact – The missing facts from Nikki Haley’s claim about border crossings and deportations under Joe Biden

    [ad_1]

    Republican primary presidential candidate Nikki Haley has pledged to deport people who have come to the U.S. illegally under President Joe Biden’s administration, as her rivals characterize her as soft on immigration. 

    “The 8 million that have come in illegally, we have to send them back because you have to look at the fact that every time we allow them to come in, we’re incentivizing more to come,” Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, said in a Jan. 5 interview with Iowa PBS. “The idea that we’ve had 8 million and they only sent back 142,000 should scare everybody.”

    Haley, who is also South Carolina’s former governor, has made similar claims at CNN and Fox News town halls.

    During a Jan. 8 Fox News town hall, Haley repeated the 8 million figure and said “Biden sent back only 142,000 last year. That’s it.”

    Haley makes it sound as if 8 million people are now living illegally in the U.S. and only 142,000 have been deported, and that’s not so.

    Nationwide data up to November 2023 shows that immigration officials have encountered migrants 8.1 million times under Biden. But the data represents events, not people. 

    About 2.3 million people have been released into the U.S. under Biden’s administration, Department of Homeland Security data shows. Most of them are families, according to The Washington Post. About 356,000 children who crossed the border alone were also let in.

    Separately, DHS estimates that about 391,000 people have evaded border authorities. (The latest data DHS has published is for fiscal year 2021, which includes about four months of the Trump administration.) 

    How many people have been sent out after reaching the border? 

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 142,000 people in fiscal year 2023. These removals happened after an official court order and can include people who have been living in the U.S. for years before Biden’s administration. The total number of ICE removals under Biden’s administration so far is about 245,000. 

    But immigration officials also turn people away through border “returns” and “expulsions.” Returns happen when officials dispatch people to their home countries without legal penalties and without formal removal proceedings. Up through mid-May 2023, officials also expelled people under Title 42, a public health policy; this began under the Trump administration as a way to mitigate COVID-19’s spread.

    The Biden administration recorded about 2.5 million Title 42 expulsions through May 2023.

    There have been more than 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions from February 2021, Biden’s first month in office, to September 2023, based on Department of Homeland Security estimates. 

    This data also represents events, not people. So, the same person can be expelled multiple times and each time would count as a separate expulsion. 

    Our ruling

    Haley said, “We’ve had 8 million” immigrants come to the U.S. illegally under Biden and they only sent back 142,000.”

    There have been 8.1 million encounters with migrants nationwide under Biden, but that number does not represent unique individuals. And not all who were stopped were allowed to stay in the U.S.

    The 142,000 refers only to ICE removals in fiscal year 2023. But that is not the only way migrants can be sent out of the U.S. There have been 3.6 million removals, returns and expulsions under Biden’s administration. This data also represents events, not people.

    Haley’s claim contains an element of truth in the numbers she cites but ignores additional data and critical context about immigration. We rate it Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Debate fact-check: Ron DeSantis’ misleading claim that 8 million migrants have come in under Biden

    PolitiFact – Debate fact-check: Ron DeSantis’ misleading claim that 8 million migrants have come in under Biden

    [ad_1]

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis attacked President Joe Biden’s immigration record during CNN’s Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

    “Biden’s let in 8 million people just in four years. They all have to go back,” DeSantis said Jan. 10.

    But this talking point relies on a misleading read of immigration data. Immigrant encounters are different from admissions. PolitiFact fact-checked a similar claim in September and rated it Mostly False.

    Nationwide data up to November 2023 shows that immigration officials have encountered migrants 8.1 million times under Biden (who has been in office almost three years). 

    RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks of the Iowa debate between Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley on CNN

    But that doesn’t mean 8.1 million people are now living in the United States. Immigration data represents events, not people. If one person tries to enter the country three different times and is stopped each time by border officials, for example, that equals three encounters, even if it’s the same person encountered.

    The number of people let into the country is about one-quarter of what DeSantis said. There have been about 2.3 million people released into the U.S. under Biden’s administration, Department of Homeland Security data shows. Also, 356,000 children who crossed the border alone were let in and placed in government custody.

    Immigration officials estimate how many people evade detection, but this data takes years to be publicly released. The latest data available is for fiscal year 2021, which includes about four months of the Trump administration. It says that about 391,000 people got away from border authorities that year.

    Data shows that not everyone encountered by border officials was allowed to stay in the country. DHS estimates there have been more than 3.6 million expulsions, removals and returns from February 2021, Biden’s first month in office, to September 2023, the latest available data.

    Our ruling

    DeSantis said, “Biden’s let in 8 million people just in four years.”

    Immigration officials have encountered migrants 8.1 million times nationwide, but that does not mean they’re all in the U.S. Encounters represent events, not individual people, and millions of encounters result in people being deported from the country.

    DeSantis’ statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Donald Trump ad wrongly describes Nikki Haley’s position on a border wall, travel ban

    PolitiFact – Donald Trump ad wrongly describes Nikki Haley’s position on a border wall, travel ban

    [ad_1]

    As the New Hampshire primary nears, polls show former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley closing the gap between her and President Donald Trump, her rival for the Republican presidential nomination. Perhaps feeling the pressure, Trump, the GOP front-runner, is airing an ad in New Hampshire that casts him as a strong defender of U.S. borders while portraying Haley as weak.

    Ominous music plays as the 30-second ad shows footage of large groups of migrants heading to the border, and families in mourning as a narrator mentions fentanyl deaths. 

    “Yet Haley and Biden oppose Trump’s border wall,” the narrator said. “Confirmed warnings of terrorists sneaking in through our southern border. Yet Haley joined Biden in opposing Trump’s visitor ban from terrorist nations.

    “Haley’s weakness puts us in grave danger. Trump’s strength protects us.”

    Text on the screen also said: “Haley opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Haley opposed Trump’s travel ban.”

    The claims about Haley’s positions are wrong. Haley said more was needed to secure the border, but she didn’t oppose Trump’s border wall. She opposed a Muslim travel ban, but supported other iterations of Trump’s travel bans. 

    Haley supported a border wall among other security measures

    On the border wall portion, the Trump ad cites a February 2023 Time article about Haley’s flip-flops around her former boss. The article linked to a 2015 Washington Post opinion piece about Haley’s remarks at a National Press Club luncheon that year. 

    Haley said that securing the border wasn’t just about building a wall.

    “Because a wall is not going to do it,” she said Sept. 2, 2015. “You’ve got to have commitment of ground troops, equipment, money, all of that to bring it together. Then you’re being serious about tackling illegal immigration.”

    During an April 2023 trip to the southwest border, Haley praised border fencing she said was installed by the Trump administration, saying more of it is needed.

    “It’s a complete lie,” Haley said about the Trump ad on Fox News Jan. 5. “First of all I didn’t say I opposed the border wall, I said I opposed just doing a border wall, I said that we have to do more than that.”

    Haley supported a ban that did not single out people for their religion

    As a presidential candidate in 2015, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” 

    Haley, then South Carolina’s governor, called Trump’s proposal “an embarrassment” that “defies everything that this country was based on.”

    The Trump ad cites those comments, ignoring that she supported the travel bans he issued when she was part of his administration. The U.S. Senate approved Haley’s confirmation as U.N. ambassador Jan. 24, 2017.

    Four days later, Trump signed an executive order banning citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days. 

    Those seven countries “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” according to an anti-terrorism law signed by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama.

    PolitiFact didn’t find any public comments from Haley about the executive order at the time. 

    After court challenges, Trump revised that order to exclude Iraq. That new order also exempted U.S. legal permanent residents and people with U.S. visas.

    In a March 2017 NBC interview, Haley said she supported the new version.

    “It’s not a Muslim ban. I will never support a Muslim ban. I don’t think we should ever ban anyone based on their religion,” she said.

    After additional court challenges, Trump issued a third version of the travel ban, restricting U.S. entry to people from Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. The Supreme Court in June 2018 upheld this travel ban.

    Haley continued to defend the policy in an interview with NDTV that month, saying the executive order was “not a Muslim ban,” because not all Muslim-majority countries were on the list and not all countries on the list were Muslim-majority.

    “This is about safety. This is about terrorism,” Haley said.

    Haley’s position is similar years later in this presidential campaign. In response to Trump’s ad, her campaign said that she “supported banning travel for people from countries with serious terrorist activity, but opposed religious tests.” 

    Our ruling

    A Trump ad claimed that Haley “opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Trump’s travel ban.”

    Haley did not oppose Trump’s border wall. In 2015, she said border security required more than a border wall and that technology, infrastructure and funding were also needed. On the 2024 campaign trail, Haley has said she wants to finish building a border wall.

    Haley supported three versions of Trump’s travel bans, saying they were focused on safety, not religion. She opposed a religion-based ban. As a presidential candidate, Haley has said she supports banning entry to people from countries with terrorist activities.

    We rate Trump’s claims False.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The House Republicans Who Have Had Enough

    The House Republicans Who Have Had Enough

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans didn’t exactly have a banner year in 2023. They made history for all the wrong reasons. Last January, they presided over the most protracted election for speaker in a century, and nine months later, for good measure, lawmakers ejected their leader, Kevin McCarthy, for the first time ever. Last month, the House expelled one of its own, George Santos, for only the sixth time.

    The rest of the year wasn’t any more productive. Thanks in part to Republican discord, the House passed fewer bills that became laws than any other year in decades. And for the few important measures that did pass, GOP leaders had to rely on Democrats to bail them out.

    Republican lawmakers have responded by quitting in droves. After the House spent much of October fighting over whom to elect as speaker, November saw more retirement announcements than any single month in more than a decade. Some members aren’t even waiting for their term to end. McCarthy resigned last week, depriving the party that fired him of both his experience and, more crucially, his vote. Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio, a Republican, and Brian Higgins of New York, a Democrat, are each leaving for new jobs in the next several weeks. (Santos would have stuck around, but his colleagues had other ideas.)

    A roughly equal number of members from each party plan to forgo reelection this year. But the most powerful departing lawmakers are Republicans: The chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Kay Granger of Texas, is leaving after a quarter century in Congress, and the head of the Financial Services Committee, Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, will end his 20-year House career next year.

    Still, some Republicans are leaving after just a few years in Congress, including Representatives Victoria Spartz of Indiana and Debbie Lesko of Arizona, both former state legislators. For them, serving in Congress simply isn’t all it’s cracked up to be—not when your party can’t seem to figure out how to govern. “People don’t engage with each other,” Lesko told me. “They just make speeches.”

    Here are the stories of four Republicans who are calling it quits at different stages of their career: McHenry, a onetime rabble-rouser who became a party insider; Brad Wenstrup, an Army podiatrist whose House tenure spanned from the Tea Party to Donald Trump; Spartz, a conservative with an impulsive streak; and Lesko, a Trump loyalist who never quite found her way in Washington. Taken together, their departures reflect the rising frustrations within a Republican Party that has floundered in the year since it assumed power in the House—a year in which it has spent more time fighting than governing.

    Debbie Lesko

    On October 17, after House Republicans had just tanked their third choice for speaker, Representative Debbie Lesko finally decided she’d had enough: She wouldn’t be seeking reelection. The 65-year-old grandmother of five had been planning to stay for one more term, but the ouster of Kevin McCarthy and the weeks of chaos that followed changed her mind. “It kind of put me over the top,” Lesko told me.

    Lesko had higher hopes for Congress back in 2018, when she won a special election to represent a safely Republican seat north of Phoenix. “Perhaps I was naive,” she conceded. Lesko prioritized border security during her first campaign and managed to get one border-related bill signed into law while Trump was president and Republicans controlled the House in 2018, but her legislative goals have fallen short since then. In the Arizona state legislature, she had served in the leadership and chaired two powerful committees. “I was used to getting things done in a bipartisan fashion,” Lesko said. The House proved to be far more difficult terrain. As a Trump ally, Lesko found few willing Democratic partners after the GOP lost control first of the House majority in 2018 and then of the presidency in 2020.

    In Arizona, Lesko said, lawmakers actually debated bills and amendments on the floor of the House and Senate; in Washington, by contrast, members just deliver speeches written for them by their young staff. “We don’t listen to each other,” Lesko lamented. “We just go in and read a statement.” She bemoaned the “lack of civility” and the hurling of personal insults between members in both parties. (When I asked if Trump had contributed to the incivility, she said, “I would prefer he not attack people personally, but he does a great job.”)

    Lesko told me she enjoyed most the days she spent interacting with constituents back home, but over six years, they could not make up for the family time she gave up on cross-country flights and on fundraising. “If I felt we were getting a whole lot accomplished, I would sacrifice it,” she said. Instead, Republicans spent a week in January 2023 fighting over their speaker and then did it all over again in October. “That certainly didn’t make me feel like I wanted to stay,” she told me.

    Patrick McHenry

    Representative Patrick McHenry introduced himself to much of America last year as a very frustrated man. The North Carolina Republican opened his unlikely stint as House speaker pro tempore with a memorable slam of the gavel—a brief eruption of anger aimed at the rump group of Republicans who had dethroned his ally, Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    When McHenry arrived in Congress nearly two decades ago, he might have counted as one of the renegades. He was a brash 29-year-old who liked nothing more than to pick fights with Democrats on cable news. After his first term, however, McHenry began to shift his strategy and redraw his image. He wanted to become a serious legislator, capable of using influence in Congress to affect public policy. “I realized that my actions were not enabling my goal, so I changed how I operated,” he told me. He became less of a partisan brawler and more of an inside player, studying the institution and how leaders in both parties wielded power. “My early years in Congress were like graduate school,” McHenry said.

    McHenry is leaving with a reputation as a widely respected if not-quite-elder statesman (he’s only 48). He serves as the chair of the Financial Services Committee and acted as one of the GOP’s top negotiators of perhaps the most significant bill to come out of Congress last year, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which prevented a debt default and ordered modest budget cuts. McHenry is retiring in part because he has to give up the committee gavel he so enjoys; Republican term limits allow most members to hold top committee posts for up to six years.

    He also passed up a bid for a more permanent promotion. At one point in October, some of the same Democrats who had chafed at McHenry’s bombast as a young lawmaker were open to the idea of him serving as speaker. McHenry told me he’d wanted to be speaker earlier in his career, but not anymore. He refused entreaties to seek election as speaker or even to use his temporary position to try to pass legislation. “It would have been to the institution’s detriment and, frankly, even to mine,” he told me. “So I decided the best course of action is to want for nothing during that time period, and that meant resisting the opportunity to use power.”

    When McHenry announced his retirement from the House two months later, he insisted that he was departing with none of the bitterness people might assume he carried. “I truly feel this institution is on the verge of the next great turn,” he said in his statement. When I asked him what gave him hope, he tried to put a positive spin on the dysfunction and disenchantment that have plagued Congress for years. “The operations of the House have been under severe pressure for a while,” McHenry said. “We have an institution that is struggling to perform in the current political environment.” He then made a prediction: “There’ll be significant changes that will happen in the coming congresses to make the place work.”

    He won’t be around to see them. The GOP’s term limits for committee leaders is an often-underappreciated reason for turnover in the party’s House ranks, but McHenry declined to seek a waiver so he could stay atop the Financial Services Committee. “I’m going to honor our rules,” he said. He hasn’t decided what comes next: “This chapter is closing, and I’ve got another chapter ahead of me.”

    Brad Wenstrup

    This much is clear: Representative Brad Wenstrup is not leaving the House out of frustration with Washington gridlock. “I reject the notion that this has been a do-nothing House of Representatives,” he told me. Wenstrup proceeded to read from a list that he said ran to 20 pages of bills that the narrow Republican majority had advanced through the lower chamber of Congress over the past year. Most of these measures are gathering dust in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but the fact that a onetime outsider like Wenstrup would be defending an embattled institution so fervently is itself something of a revelation.

    Wenstrup won election to the House a decade ago as a Tea Party–backed insurgent, having defeated an incumbent Republican in a surprising 2012 primary challenge from the right. He’ll leave next year as a leadership loyalist, positioned in the ideological center of a GOP conference that has grown decidedly more conservative in the past decade. He voted for the debt-ceiling deal in June, despite having criticized his first Republican opponent during their campaign for backing a similar bipartisan agreement. “Am I a conservative? Yes,” he said. “Did I try to advance common sense? Yes. Did I try to establish myself as a statesman? Yes.”

    Wenstrup has become an institutionalist in other ways too. His biggest complaint—a common one among small-government conservatives—is that federal agencies have taken too much power from Congress, evading proper oversight and interpreting laws beyond the intent of the legislators who wrote them. “We have to bring back Schoolhouse Rock,” Wenstrup said, recalling the cartoon that taught a generation of Americans a somewhat-idealized version of legislative sausage-making. “A bill on Capitol Hill gets signed by the president. That’s the law. Agencies don’t get to change it.”

    An Iraq War veteran who served as a combat surgeon, Wenstrup, 65, started his family later than most and has two young children in Ohio. He told me he had decided that this term would be his last in the House before any of the speaker tumult of the past year: “I decided that I wanted to make sure that I raised my kids, not someone else.”

    Victoria Spartz

    Good luck trying to predict Representative Victoria Spartz’s next move. The Indiana conservative is leaving Congress next year after just two terms—assuming she sticks with her plan.

    That hasn’t always been the case during Spartz’s short tenure in the House. She is fiercely protective of her options, and she has made her name by going her own way. At one point this fall, she threatened to resign her seat if Congress did not create a commission to tackle the federal debt. “I cannot save this Republic alone,” she said at the time. (Congress has created no such commission, but Spartz isn’t leaving quite yet.)

    Spartz, 45, is the only Ukrainian-born member of Congress, and she assumed a prominent role in the GOP after Russia’s invasion in 2022. Her nuanced position on the conflict has defied easy characterization. While cheering for Ukraine’s victory, she sharply criticized its prime minister, Volodymyr Zelensky, at a time when much of the West was rallying to his side. Spartz has accused Zelensky of “playing politics and theater” and demanded an investigation of one of his top aides. When members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee traveled to Ukraine on an official visit without her—she doesn’t serve on the panel—Spartz paid her own way and “crashed” the trip. She supports more U.S. aid to Ukraine, but not without conditions, and she believes that the funding must be more targeted toward heavy military equipment rather than humanitarian assistance. “Ukraine must win this war,” she told me, “but wars are won with weapons, and we need to be much faster, much tougher, and better.”

    Spartz again proved to be a wild card during the House’s recurring struggles over picking a speaker. During the 15 rounds of balloting last January, she supported Kevin McCarthy on the first three turns, then voted “present” eight times before returning to McCarthy for the final four rounds. In October, she voted with McCarthy’s critics to bring up a resolution to oust him as speaker, but on the climactic vote, she stuck with McCarthy. “Kevin wasn’t a bad guy. He just didn’t like to govern,” Spartz said.

    Midway through Spartz’s first term, Politico reported on high staff turnover in her congressional office, quoting former aides who described Spartz as a quick-tempered boss who frequently yelled at and belittled her underlings. Spartz made no effort to deny the accounts, telling Politico that her style was “not for everyone.” After winning a second term that fall, however, Spartz quickly announced that she would not seek office in 2024—forgoing both a third bid for the House and open statewide races for governor and Senate in Indiana.

    Her departure, she insisted to me, represents a break from politics, and not a retirement. “Sometimes it’s good to take some time off,” Spartz said. She denied that any of the drama of the past two years—the war in Ukraine, the speaker fights, criticism of her management—contributed to her decision to leave. Her children are now teenagers, Spartz said, and she wants to spend more time with them.

    Still, Spartz doesn’t quite seem at peace with her plans. Given her past shifts, I asked if she still might change her mind and run again. She wouldn’t, she said, but with a caveat: “Unless I get real upset!”

    Given the volatility of the past year in Congress, that’s a threat it would be wise not to ignore.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Texas Gov. Abbott suggests feds violated court order by snipping razor wire at border. Is it true?

    PolitiFact – Texas Gov. Abbott suggests feds violated court order by snipping razor wire at border. Is it true?

    [ad_1]

    As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and other congressional Republicans gathered on the banks of the Rio Grande to highlight the migrant crisis at the Texas-Mexico border and criticize the Biden administration’s handling of it, Gov. Greg Abbott suggested that a resurfaced video appeared to show the Biden administration violating a federal court order barring Customs and Border Protection agents from cutting razor wire the state installed to discourage unlawful immigration.

    Posted by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., during his visit to Eagle Pass on Jan. 3 with Johnson and around 60 other House Republicans, the video shows Border Patrol agents snipping concertina wire along the banks of the Rio Grande as dozens of migrants wade toward U.S. soil. Some are shown reaching land with the aid of a rope affixed to a CBP pickup truck.

    “Importantly, if this video was taken today, it means that the Biden Admin. is in direct violation of a current court order by the 5th circuit court of appeals prohibiting the border patrol from cutting the razor wire erected by Texas,” Abbott wrote in a fiery post on X on Wednesday afternoon.

    Abbott vowed to prosecute the Biden administration for contempt of court if the claim were confirmed.

    Abbott, however, should have known the video was taken several weeks before the court order came down because he posted a video of the same incident in September.

    Gaetz’s tweet of the video was also misleading. 

    “I’m currently in Eagle Pass, TX witnessing the intentional destruction of our Southern Border by the Biden administration,” Gaetz said in the video post on X just before 2 p.m. Jan. 3. It had been viewed more than a million times by that night and received more than 5,000 retweets.

    Gaetz wrote that an unnamed “Texas bc official” had sent the video, which “shows how illegal aliens are being encouraged to invade our country while the fencing put up by Texas is cut open by @CBP.”

    Abbott’s post, which cited Gaetz’s video, had been viewed more than 500,000 times and liked more than 15,000 times by the afternoon on Jan. 4.

    Abbott’s office did not respond to American-Statesman requests for comment. In an email statement, a spokesman for Rep. Gaetz said “the post did not indicate that the video was taken this week.”

    A screenshot of a video Gov. Greg Abbott posted on X on Sept. 20, 2023, before Texas sued to stop the federal government from cutting the razor wire that state had placed along the border.

    Similar video first circulated in September

    The incident shown in Gaetz’s video occurred several weeks before a federal appeals court in late October issued an order temporarily barring the Biden administration from removing the barbed barrier.

    A very similar video of the same incident circulated widely in late September 2023, a CBP spokesperson told the American-Statesman, which conducted reverse-image searches of several stills from the clip to confirm it was first circulated several months ago.

    Shared by Abbott along with the Daily Mail and numerous X users, the video from September shows the two CBP agents cutting a section of wire, albeit from a minutely different angle. The September video and the one Gaetz shared Jan. 3 show the exact same attire, foliage, background and wire arrangement — including a pink plastic object on the right side of the section of exposed wire — and the same migrants wading through the river below the agents.

    After that video first circulated in September, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to stop the federal government from removing the wire. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement at the time saying that border agents “have a responsibility under federal law” to protect migrants from being injured regardless of their legal status. Migrant children have been lacerated by the fences, needing stitches in some cases, USA Today reported.

    Judge Alia Moses, the chief judge for the U.S. Western District of Texas, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued a temporary order Oct. 30 barring the wire’s removal except in cases of emergency.

    “The Court shall grant the temporary relief requested, with one important exception for any medical emergency that mostly likely results in serious bodily injury or death to a person, absent any boats or other life-saving apparatus available to avoid such medical emergencies prior to reaching the concertina wire barrier,” the judge wrote in the court filing.

    The issue then pingponged between opposing rulings. Moses reversed her position and issued a new order authorizing the federal government to continue cutting the wire in November, but a Dec. 19 decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals again prohibited cutting of border wire.

    The Justice Department appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 3.

    Austin American-Statesman staff reporter John C. Moritz contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Key facts about immigration data: What it can and can’t tell us about border policies

    PolitiFact – Key facts about immigration data: What it can and can’t tell us about border policies

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden was elected in 2020 after promising to reverse many of Donald Trump’s restrictive immigration policies, including some that limited people’s ability to apply for asylum at the southern U.S. border. But many Republicans, including those seeking to oust Biden in the November election, say his approach isn’t working and that the U.S. now has “open borders.”

    As evidence, Republicans cite the historically high number of migrant encounters border officials have recorded. And they compare that count with lower apprehension numbers under previous presidential administrations.

    The Biden administration, in response, cites immigration declines after new policies were enacted as evidence that he’s got the problem under control.

    But neither the attacks nor the defense tell the whole story. Although the immigration data cited is often accurate, the way it’s presented or the inferences made are misleading or need context.

    Here are key facts about immigration data that will help you better understand the oversimplified — or confusing — claims you’ll likely hear in ads and speeches preceding November’s election. 

    The many caveats to the immigration data

    We often hear that illegal immigration under Biden has reached record highs. There’s some truth to this, but there are also caveats. 

    Data at a glance: Encounters under Biden have surpassed the record high 1.64 million apprehensions recorded in fiscal year 2000. It’s happened three times: 

    • In fiscal year 2021, which began under Trump in October 2020 and ended in September 2021 with Biden in the White House, Border Patrol stopped migrants at the southern U.S. border 1.66 million times. 

    • In fiscal year 2022, Border Patrol recorded 2.2 million encounters.

    • In fiscal year 2023, encounters dropped slightly to 2 million. 

    Still, “encounter” numbers aren’t exactly comparable with “apprehension” numbers. Border data under both Biden and Trump can’t be directly compared with data from previous administrations because of COVID-19 policy changes. 

    Before the pandemic, claims about illegal border crossings generally involved only apprehension data. 

    During the pandemic, the Trump and Biden administrations performed apprehensions under immigration law plus expulsions under Title 42, a public health policy, to stop people from entering the United States.

    Starting in fiscal year 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection began reporting encounters, a combination of apprehensions and Title 42 expulsions. (Title 42 enforcement ended in May 2023.) So, the change in immigration data tracking makes it hard to fairly compare how many more people have come illegally during Biden’s presidency than during other administrations.

    People expelled under the public health policy faced no legal consequences for repeatedly trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Immigration experts say that encouraged them to try over and over to cross. (Under immigration law, people can face legal penalties for repeat illegal entries.)

    Comparing Biden-era staffing versus 2000: In 2000, there were fewer Border Patrol agents, and that likely made it easier to cross the border evading apprehension, the American Immigration Council, an immigrant-rights advocacy group, said in a 2022 report. Immigration officials estimate that 2 million people entered the U.S. without detection that year. In fiscal year 2021, the latest available data, about 390,000 people evaded detection.

    So, even though there were more encounters in 2021 than apprehensions in 2000, immigration officials estimate that more people evaded detection in 2000 than in 2021.

    What the data counts: Immigration data represents events, not people. If one person tries to enter the country three times and is stopped each time by border officials, for example, that equals three encounters, even if it’s the same person encountered.

    Encounters data doesn’t tell us how many people settled in the U.S.

    Immigration data can give us a sense of the scale of migration, but it can’t tell us how many people crossed the border and now live here.

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis misleadingly said in September that 6 million or 7 million people have “come illegally under Biden.”

    There were 7.8 million encounters nationwide under Biden as of October 2023. But this metric doesn’t confirm that 7.8 million people entered the United States. At least 2.5 million encounters ended in expulsions under the public health policy, and hundreds of thousands have been expelled under immigration law.

    “There is no authoritative source on how many unauthorized immigrants have joined the U.S. population since President Biden took office,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

    President Joe Biden talks with U.S. Border Patrol agents as they walk Jan. 8, 2023. along a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso Texas. (AP)

    Biden’s response to rising immigration data: Expand legal pathways and deport

    The Biden administration has claimed that a “broken immigration system” resulting from decades of Congress not updating immigration laws, and increased global migration contribute to the high numbers of people arriving at the border.

    In response, the Biden administration has created and expanded multiple immigration programs to deter and reduce illegal immigration. Among them:

    • Humanitarian parole programs that allow hundreds of thousands of people from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Haiti to apply for a legal path to live and work in the U.S. for two-year periods. These are countries affected by wars and political instability.

    • A smartphone app that lets people seeking asylum schedule appointments at official ports of entry. People who don’t do this must prove they unsuccessfully applied for asylum in another country before reaching the United States; otherwise, immigration officials will presume they are ineligible for asylum. 

    • Negotiated agreements with Mexico for it to take certain deported non-Mexicans.

    • Resumed deportation flights to Venezuela and other countries with which the U.S. has fraught diplomatic relations. 

    To claim success, the administration has said that fewer people have shown up at the border after some of the policies were enacted.

    “Since we created the new program the number of Venezuelans trying to enter America without going through a legal process has dropped dramatically,” Biden said in January 2023, referring to a parole program for Venezuelans announced in October 2022.

    But a closer look at the data shows the numbers ebb and flow.

    Encounters dropped from nearly 22,000 in October 2022 to fewer than 7,000 in November 2022. They also dropped for the next few months, but then rose again to reach nearly 55,000 in September 2023. 

    Immigration experts caution against attributing any immigration fluctuations to just one policy. 

    New policies can lead to a pause in immigration “while migrants (and smugglers) consider what the changes mean, and then crossings again increase,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said Dec. 19 on X, formerly Twitter.

    A December 2023 report from the Bipartisan Policy Centers found that it’s hard to definitively conclude how single U.S. immigration policies over the past decade have influenced illegal immigration. The numbers alone don’t explain demographic changes or the factors that push people to leave their home countries. 

    “Continued fluctuation in numbers of arrivals at the border is expected,” the report said, “if there is no consistent immigration policy to address the ongoing migration crisis.”

    RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: How many people on the terrorist watchlist are coming into the United States?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – No, the U.S. government is not giving people who crossed the border illegally $5,000 gift cards

    PolitiFact – No, the U.S. government is not giving people who crossed the border illegally $5,000 gift cards

    [ad_1]

    Mark Lamb, sheriff of Arizona’s Pinal County, has campaigned for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination on the promise to “secure the border.” He’s posted short videos on X about what he calls “truth bombs,” mostly about immigration. 

    When migrants cross the U.S. border illegally, “They’re being given a cellphone, a plane ticket to wherever they wanna go in this country … and a $5,000 visa card,” Lamb said in a Dec. 5 video. “We have our government giving people who came into this country illegally $5,000 gift cards. That’s the truth, folks.”

    Lamb tweaked his message when he repeated the claim during a Dec. 7 interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters. 

    “The way that they’re keeping this away from the American people is they are giving money to nongovernmental organizations who swoop in as soon as they’re processed, and they’re sending them off on an airplane to wherever they wanna go, giving them a phone and giving them Visa cards up to $5,000,” Lamb said. He added later that the migrants “go directly to the ATMs after that and start pulling money out.”

    We’ve previously fact-checked claims about immigrants getting cellphones and free flights. We’ve also checked claims about migrants getting debit cards or monthly checks from the government. 

    We asked Lamb for his evidence that migrants are getting $5,000 gift cards from the government or nonprofit organizations, but he did not respond.

    On Fox News, Lamb said his information “comes from very solid sources, from multiple sources.”

    When Watters asked Lamb to name these sources, Lamb said, “I get this information from sources that are right inside of there. Including guys that work with Border Patrol who are fed up with what their government is doing.” 

    Both the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection told PolitiFact they do not financially assist people who cross the border illegally. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which gives money to nonprofit organizations that support immigrants, said that money cannot be used to purchase gift cards or prepaid debit cards. 

    We reached out to nonprofit organizations aiding immigrants that have received government funding, and representatives from five of them said the organizations do not provide $5,000 gift cards to migrants.

    Two FEMA programs provide federal funding to nonprofit organizations supporting immigrants: the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – Humanitarian Relief, and the Shelter and Services Program. Funding also goes to local governments. 

    In fiscal year 2019, Congress authorized funding from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program for nonprofit organizations supporting migrants encountered by the Department of Homeland Security. A national board, which awards funding to organizations, gave around $400 million in fiscal year 2023. 

    The Shelter and Services Program began in fiscal year 2023 and awarded around $380 million in funding. 

    Both programs list allowable expenses for which nonprofits can receive funding or reimbursement. Beds, linens, food and first-aid supplies are listed; gift cards and prepaid debit cards are not.

    “Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston does not provide Visa gift cards in this amount to immigrants,” said Betsy Ballard, the organization’s communications director. 

    Ballard said the organization sometimes provides $25 gift cards to clients, including migrants, to cover “immediate needs often related to a crisis situation, such as gas or food,” but private donations fund those cards. 

    Kate Clark, senior director of immigration services for Jewish Family Service of San Diego, which manages the San Diego Rapid Response Network Fund, said asylum seekers might get “travel cash assistance through private funders,” but not from government funding. And the cash assistance is neither $5,000 nor delivered as a gift card. How much people get depends on how long they’ve traveled and how big their families are, Clark said. One person might get $10 for an eight-hour travel day; a four-person family might get $100.

    Our ruling

    Lamb said, “We have our government giving people who came into this country illegally $5,000 gift cards.”

    Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection said they do not financially assist people who illegally cross the U.S. border. 

    Lamb also said the gift cards come from government-funded nonprofit organizations. FEMA, which directs the two federal funding programs for nonprofits that assist migrants, said grant funding cannot be spent on gift cards or prepaid debit cards. And five migrant-aiding nonprofit organizations said they do not provide $5,000 gift cards.

    At PolitiFact, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Lamb didn’t provide evidence to back up his statement, either when questioned publicly or when asked by PolitiFact.

    We rate the claim False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate border security talks grind on as Trump invokes Nazi-era 'blood' rhetoric against immigrants

    Senate border security talks grind on as Trump invokes Nazi-era 'blood' rhetoric against immigrants

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Time slipping, White House and Senate negotiators struggled Sunday to reach a U.S. border security deal that would unlock President Joe Biden’s request for billions of dollars worth of military aid for Ukraine and other national security needs before senators leave town for the holiday recess.

    The Biden administration, which is becoming more deeply involved in the talks, is facing pressure from all sides over any deal. Negotiators insist they are making progress, but a hoped-for framework did not emerge. Republican leaders signaled that without bill text, an upcoming procedural would likely fail.

    The talks come as Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner in 2024, delivered alarming anti-immigrant remarks about “blood” purity over the weekend, echoing Nazi slogans of World War II at a political rally.

    “They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump said about the record numbers of immigrants coming to the U.S. without immediate legal status.

    Speaking in the early-voting state of New Hampshire, Trump, drew on words similar to Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kempf” as the former U.S. president berated Biden’s team over the flow of migrants. “All over the world they’re pouring into our country,” Trump said.

    Throughout the weekend, senators and top Biden officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, have been working intently behind closed doors at the Capitol to strike a border deal, which Republicans in Congress are demanding in exchange for any help for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs. Mayorkas arrived for more talks late Sunday afternoon.

    “Everyday we get closer, not farther away,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., as talks wrapped up in the evening.

    Their holiday recess postponed, Murphy and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona independent, acknowledged the difficulty of drafting, and securing support, for deeply complicated legislation on an issue that has vexed Congress for years. Ahead of more talks Monday, it is becoming apparent any action is unlikely before year’s end.

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said senators don’t want to be “jammed” by a last-minute compromise reached by negotiators.

    “We’re not anywhere close to a deal,” Graham, whose staff has joined the talks, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Graham predicted the deliberations will go into next year. He was among 15 Republican senators who wrote to GOP leadership urging them to wait until the House returns Jan. 8 to discuss the issue.

    Top GOP negotiator Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also signaled in their own letter Sunday that talks still had a ways to go. Lankford said later that the January timeline was “realistic.”

    The Biden administration faces an increasingly difficult political situation as global migration is on a historic rise, and many migrants are fleeing persecution or leaving war-torn countries for the United States, with smugglers capitalizing on the situation.

    The president is being berated daily by Republicans, led by Trump, as border crossings have risen to levels that make even some in Biden’s own Democratic Party concerned.

    But the Biden administration, in considering revival of Trump-like policies, is drawing outrage from Democrats and immigrant advocates who say the ideas would gut the U.S. asylum system and spark fears of deportations from immigrants already living in the U.S.

    The White House’s failure to fully engage Latino lawmakers in the talks until recently, or ensure a seat at the negotiating table, has led to a near revolt from leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

    “It’s unacceptable,” said Rep. Nanette Barragan, D-Calif., chair of the Hispanic Caucus, on social media. “We represent border districts & immigrant communities that will be severely impacted by extreme changes to border policy.”

    Progressives in Congress are also warning the Biden administration off any severe policies that would bar immigrants a legal path to enter the country. “No backroom deal on the border without the involvement of the House, the House Hispanic Caucus, Latino senators is going to pass,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., on Fox News.

    White House chief of staff Jeff Zients, along with Mayorkas, heard from leading Latino lawmakers during a conference call with the Hispanic Caucus on Saturday afternoon.

    The senators and the White House appear to be focused on ways to limit the numbers of migrants who are eligible for asylum at the border, primarily by toughening the requirements to qualify for their cases to go forward.

    The talks have also focused removing some migrants who have already been living in the U.S. without full legal status, and on ways to temporarily close the U.S.-Mexico border to some crossings if they hit a certain metric, or threshold. Arrests of migrants have topped 10,000 on some days.

    There has also been discussion about limiting existing programs that have allowed groups of arrivals from certain countries to temporarily enter the U.S. while they await proceedings about their claims. Decades ago, those programs welcomed Vietnamese arrivals and others, and have since been opened to Ukrainians, Afghans and a group that includes Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans and Haitians.

    Meanwhile, Biden’s massive $110 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other security needs is hanging in the balance.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a dramatic, if disappointing, visit to Washington last week to plead with Congress and the White House for access to U.S. weaponry as his country fights against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

    Many, but not all, Republicans have soured on helping Ukraine fight Russia, taking their cues from Trump. The former president praised Putin, quoting the Russian leader during Saturday’s rally while slamming the multiple investigations against him as politically motivated — including the federal indictment against Trump for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election that resulted in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

    Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States said Sunday she believes in “Christmas miracles” and won’t give up hope.

    Of Biden’s package, some $61 billion would go toward Ukraine, about half of the money for the U.S. Defense Department to buy and replenish tanks, artillery and other weaponry sent to the war effort.

    “All the eyes are on Congress now,” the envoy, Oksana Markarova, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

    “We can just only pray and hope that there will be resolve there, and that the deal that they will be able to reach will allow the fast decisions also on the support to Ukraine,” she said.

    The House already left for the holiday recess, but Republican Speaker Mike Johnson is being kept aware of the negotiations in the Senate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Latino Democrats in the Senate decry Biden's concessions in border and Ukraine talks

    Latino Democrats in the Senate decry Biden's concessions in border and Ukraine talks

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Prominent Latinos in Congress looked on quietly, at first, privately raising concerns with the Biden administration over the direction of border security talks.

    Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California was on the phone constantly with administration officials questioning why the Senate negotiations did not include any meaningful consideration of providing pathways to citizenship for longtime undocumented immigrants.

    New Mexico Democrat Sen. Ben Ray Luján made similar arguments as he tried to get meetings with top-level White House officials.

    But when the talks didn’t seem to make enough difference, the influential lawmakers started leading the open opposition.

    “A return to Trump-era policies is not the fix,” Padilla said. “In fact, it will make the problem worse.”

    Padilla even pulled President Joe Biden aside at a fundraiser last weekend in California to warn him “to be careful” of being dragged into “harmful policy.”

    The Latino senators have found themselves on shifting ground in the debate over immigration, as the Democratic president, who is reaching for a border deal as part of his $110 billion package for Ukraine, Israel and other national security needs, has tried to tamp down the historic number of people arriving at the border with Mexico.

    The negotiations, which are expected to continue this weekend at the Capitol, come as the Biden administration has increasingly endured criticism over its handling of border and immigration issues — not just from Republicans, but from members of the president’s own party as well. Democratic cities and states across the country have been vocal about the financial toll that they say migrants have been taking on their resources.

    But left off the table in the talks are pro-immigration reforms, such as granting permanent legal status to thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, often referred to as “Dreamers,” based on the DREAM Act that would have provided similar protections for young immigrants but was never approved.

    A few days after his conversation with the president, Padilla, Luján and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., aired their concerns prominently at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus press conference in front of the Capitol.

    They battered Senate Republicans for demanding the border policy changes in exchange for Ukraine aid, and they criticized Biden for making concessions that they say ultimately undermine the United States’ standing as a country that welcomes immigrants.

    Padilla said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has promised him and several other senators to allow them to see proposals before there is a final agreement, but Latino lawmakers have largely been left outside the core negotiating group, even as they consistently proposed progressive fixes to the U.S. immigration system.

    Biden is facing pressure from all sides. He has increasingly faced criticism over the historic numbers of migrants and he is also trying to address the political weakness ahead of a potential campaign rematch with Donald Trump, the former Republican president, who has promised to enact far-right immigration measures.

    And for Biden, the issue is now tied to a top foreign policy goal: providing robust support for Ukraine’s defense against Russia.

    The White House and Senate leaders are pushing for a framework of the border deal by Sunday, according to one person granted anonymity to discuss the situation. But others cautioned it may take longer.

    Recently during the negotiations, the White House has pushed to include provisions that would legalize young immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children, according to two people with knowledge of the closed-door talks.

    Republicans have demanded several asylum restrictions that Democrats have so far resisted, but the protections for so-called “Dreamers” would be one way for Democrats to secure one of their longstanding immigration priorities.

    “There’s still disagreements and we continue to work at them,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters after a round of talks Friday.

    The bipartisan group negotiating the package has acknowledged that it expects to lose votes from both the left and right wings of either party.

    “Regardless of people’s political persuasions, this is a crisis,” said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent who is part of the core negotiating group. “There is nothing that is humane about having thousands of individuals sitting in the desert without access to restrooms or food or water, no shade, just waiting for days to interact with a Border Patrol agent. That’s what’s happening in southern Arizona.”

    But immigration advocates have been rallying opposition to the proposed changes — often comparing them to Trump-era measures.

    Using words like “draconian” and “betrayal,” advocates argued during a Friday call with reporters that the proposals would undermine U.S. commitments to accepting people fleeing persecution and do little to stop people from making the long, dangerous journey to the border.

    One of the policies under consideration would allow border officials to easily send migrants back to Mexico without letting them seek asylum in America, but advocates argue it could just place them into the hands of dangerous cartels who prey on migrants in northern Mexico.

    They also say that when the Trump and Biden administrations previously used the expulsion authority on public health grounds during the pandemic, migrants sent back to Mexico didn’t return home. Instead they tried over and over again to enter the U.S. because there were no repercussions.

    Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said it would just make the border region “more chaotic, more dangerous.”

    The policies under consideration would also be difficult to implement. Detaining migrants or families would lead to hundreds of thousands of people in custody — at a huge cost — and could force the Department of Homeland Security to divert staff from other duties to the border.

    “These are all things that are extremely, extremely worrying,” said Jason Houser, the former chief of staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    If the legislation comes to a vote, Padilla and other prominent House Democrats, such as Reps. Nanette Barragán, the chair of the Hispanic Caucus, and Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Progressive Caucus, will likely lead opposition from the left.

    Immigration advocates were also heartened to see support from prominent House members like Rep. Veronica Escobar, who is a co-chair of Biden’s reelection campaign, and Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, at the Hispanic Caucus news conference in front of the Capitol this week.

    Padilla warned that Biden’s concessions on border restrictions could have lasting impact on his support from Latino voters.

    “To think that concessions are going to be made without benefiting a single Dreamer, a single farm worker, a single undocumented essential worker is unconscionable,” he said.

    __

    Associated Press writer Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona's governor is sending the state's National Guard to the border to help with a migrant influx

    Arizona's governor is sending the state's National Guard to the border to help with a migrant influx

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX — Arizona’s governor on Friday ordered the state’s National Guard to the border with Mexico to help federal officials manage an influx of migrants.

    Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs said she issued the executive order because “the federal government is refusing to do its job to secure our border and keep our communities safe.”

    “I am taking action where the federal government won’t,” Hobbs said.

    It was unclear when the troops would arrive at the border and exactly how many would be mobilized.

    Hobbs asked President Joe Biden’s administration a week ago to mobilize 243 Arizona National Guard troops already in the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector that includes Lukeville, Arizona, to help federal officers reopen the border crossing that was indefinitely closed Dec. 4.

    Customs and Border Protection has said shutting down the official crossing was necessary to allow personnel stationed there to help Border Patrol agents manage the hundreds of migrants illegally crossing in that area daily.

    Although remote, the crossing is a popular route for Arizonans traveling to the Mexican resort of Puerto Peñasco, or Rocky Point, about 62 miles (100 kilometers) south of the border on the northern shores of the Sea of Cortez.

    Hobbs said the National Guard members will be stationed at multiple locations along the southern border, including around Lukeville.

    There, they will support state and local agencies engaged in law enforcement, including interdiction of illegal drugs and human trafficking.

    The San Miguel crossing located farther east on the Tohono O’odham Nation is also seeing hundreds of migrant arrivals daily, but tribal officials said the National Guard would not be stationed on the reservation.

    “We are in close communication with Governor Hobbs on this issue,” said Verlon Jose, chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation. “We made clear that no National Guard would be deployed to the Nation and her office has agreed. Today’s action by the Governor is a necessary step in addressing the current crisis at the border.”

    Hobbs said the Biden administration had not responded to her request that the U.S. government reimburse Arizona for border security spending.

    Customs and Border Protection officials said they did not have an immediate response to the governor’s decision.

    The Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, National Guard confirmed Friday afternoon it was activating members.

    Major Gen. Kerry L. Muehlenbeck, who oversees the Arizona National Guard, noted that in September it wrapped up a 30-month active-duty mission providing support to law enforcement agencies in southern Arizona.

    Muehlenbeck said the earlier mission provided logistics, administrative, cyber, and medical support.

    U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, who represents southern Arizona, said he disagreed with Hobbs’ executive order.

    “But I do appreciate that Governor Hobbs has rejected the brutal and cruel tactics of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott who have taken advantage of this crisis to inhumanely and illegally use migrants as political pawns and to politicize and pander instead of working on real solutions,” Grijalva said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress departs without a deal on Ukraine aid and border security, but Senate will work next week

    Congress departs without a deal on Ukraine aid and border security, but Senate will work next week

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Congress was departing Washington on Thursday without a deal to pass wartime support for Ukraine, but Senate negotiators and President Joe Biden’s administration were still racing to wrap up a border security compromise to unlock the stalemate before the end of the year.

    The Senate planned to come back next week in hopes of passing the $110 billion package of aid for Ukraine, Israel and other national security and finalizing a deal to place new restrictions on asylum claims at the U.S. border. But the House showed no sign of returning to push the legislation through the full Congress.

    Lawmakers leaving the impasse unresolved through the holidays would mean the Biden administration would have to rely on a dwindling supply of funds for Ukraine. The wartime aid has so far been vital to Ukraine’s defending against Russia’s invasion, but an emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier Thursday recommitted to his goals in the war.

    Repelling Russia has been one of Biden’s chief foreign policy goals. But the Democratic president is facing stiff opposition from Republicans in Congress — both from populist conservatives who no longer want to fund the nearly two-year-old conflict and GOP senators who have been traditional allies to Ukraine’s defense but insist that the U.S. also enact policies aimed at cutting the historic number of migrants who are arriving at the U.S. border with Mexico.

    Top Biden administration officials were expected to continue meetings with Senate negotiators in hopes of reaching a deal in principle. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, rescheduled the Senate to return to Washington on Monday to give negotiators more time.

    “We have to get this done,” Schumer said, adding that he would push for a Senate vote on the funding package next week even if an agreement is not in place.

    In an earlier speech on the Senate floor, Schumer said that the deadlock in Congress has left “Putin mocking our resolve.” He cast the decisions facing lawmakers as a potential turning point of history: “There is too much on the line for Ukraine, for America, for Western democracy, to throw in the towel right now.”

    But the House ended work and departed for the holidays, with Republican Speaker Mike Johnson showing no sign he will have members return until the second week of January.

    In fact, Johnson’s office sent around a clip from a Zelenskyy interview suggesting aid could wait until the new year.

    Senate Republicans also expressed doubt there was time left this year to both reach an agreement and work through writing the text of legislation, with Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio saying there would be a “revolt” by Republicans if they were forced into a quick vote.

    A core group of Senate negotiators and Biden administration officials were expected to work through the weekend narrowing a list of priorities aimed at curtailing the number of migrants applying for asylum at the U.S. border.

    “We are making progress, I feel more confident today than I did yesterday,” Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent who has often been central to Senate deal-making, told The Associated Press.

    Faced with historic numbers of migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico, the White House has negotiated a change to the law that would allow Homeland Security officials to stop migrants from applying for asylum if the number of total crossings exceeded a certain capacity.

    Negotiators have also considered several other policies that resemble those pursued under former President Donald Trump’s administration, including detaining people who claim asylum at the border and granting nationwide authority to quickly remove migrants who have been in the U.S. for less than two years.

    Sinema declined to discuss details of the talks but said her aim was to craft a package that has both the policy and funding to “create an orderly, safe, secure and humane process” for seeking asylum or immigrating for “other legal reasons.” She added that negotiators understand they will lose support from wings of both conservatives and progressives, but were aiming to pass the package in the Senate with majorities of both parties.

    “There will probably be folks on the edges of the political spectrum who are not happy with a solution that secures our border, brings order and is humane,” Sinema said.

    In one friction point in talks, the White House has resisted Republican demands to curtail a humanitarian parole program that has allowed tens of thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter the U.S., often at ports of entry other than the border, according to several people familiar with the talks who discussed them only on the condition of anonymity.

    Still, immigration advocates have been dismayed at the White House’s concessions in the talks.

    Sen. Alex Padilla, the California Democrat who has spearheaded Senate resistance to the plans, said he has told Biden “to be careful because Republicans are hellbent on dragging us into harmful policy territory.”

    Congress has struggled for decades to find any agreement on border and immigration policy, yet Republicans argue that the Biden administration opened the door for a policy negotiation both by including border-related funding in the national security package and openly calling for Congress to take up reforms.

    But the complicated and contentious nature of the issue prompted many GOP senators to conclude that there would be no deal for Ukraine aid this year, even as they pledged to prove Putin wrong for doubting U.S. support for Ukraine.

    “Sometimes democracies take a little more time, but the resolve is real,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D.

    Some Democrats fretted that leaving the funding deadlock hanging for weeks could precipitate the deal’s collapse.

    “Actions speak louder than words,” said Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New U.S. Aid For Ukraine By Year-End Seems Increasingly Out Of Reach As GOP Ties It To Border Security

    New U.S. Aid For Ukraine By Year-End Seems Increasingly Out Of Reach As GOP Ties It To Border Security

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A deal to provide further U.S. assistance to Ukraine by year-end appears to be increasingly out of reach for President Joe Biden. The impasse is deepening in Congress despite dire warnings from the White House about the consequences of inaction as Republicans insist on pairing the aid with changes to America’s immigration and border policies.

    After the Democratic president said this past week he was willing to “make significant compromises on the border,” Republicans quickly revived demands that they had earlier set aside, hardening their positions and attempting to shift the negotiations to the right, according to a person familiar with the talks who was not authorized to publicly discuss them and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The latest proposal, from the lead GOP negotiator, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., came during a meeting with a core group of senators before they left Washington on Thursday afternoon. It could force the White House to consider ideas that many Democrats will seriously oppose, throwing new obstacles in the difficult negotiations.

    Biden is facing the prospect of a cornerstone of his foreign policy — repelling Russian President Vladimir Putin from overtaking Ukraine — crumbling as U.S. support for funding the war wanes, especially among Republicans. The White House says a failure to approve more aid by year’s end could have catastrophic consequences for Ukraine and its ability to fight.

    To preserve U.S. backing, the Biden administration has quietly engaged in Senate talks on border policy in recent weeks, providing assistance to the small group of senators trying to reach a deal and communicating what policy changes it would find acceptable.

    The president is trying to satisfy GOP demands to reduce the historic number of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border while alleviating Democrats’ fears that legal immigration will be choked off with drastic measures.

    As talks sputtered to a restart this past week, Democrats warned Republicans that time for a deal was running short. Congress is scheduled to depart Washington in mid-December for a holiday break.

    “Republicans need to show they are serious about reaching a compromise, not just throwing on the floor basically Donald Trump’s border policies,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday before Republicans made their counteroffer.

    But the new Republican proposal dug in on policy changes that had led Democrats to step back from the negotiations, according to the person familiar with the talks. The GOP offer calls for ending the humanitarian parole program that’s now in place for existing classes of migrants — Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans and Haitians. That idea had been all but dashed before.

    Additionally, those groups of migrants would not be allowed to be paroled again if the terms of their stay expire before their cases are adjudicated in immigration proceedings.

    GOP senators proposed monitoring systems such as ankle bracelets for people, including children, who are detained at the border and are awaiting parole. Republicans want to ban people from applying for asylum if they have transited through a different country where they could have sought asylum instead. GOP lawmakers also want to revive executive powers that would allow a president to shut down entries for wide-ranging reasons.

    Further, after migrant encounters at the border recently hit historic numbers, the GOP proposal would set new guidelines requiring the border to be essentially shut down if illegal crossings reach a certain limit.

    Lankford declined to discuss specifics after the Thursday meeting, but said he was trying to “negotiate in good faith.” He said the historic number of migrants at the border could not be ignored. The sheer number of people arriving at the border has swamped the asylum system, he said, making it impossible for authorities to adequately screen the people they allow in.

    “Do you want large numbers of undocumented individuals and unscreened individuals without work permits, without access to the rest of the economy?” Lankford said.

    The lead Democratic negotiator, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, did not quickly respond to the GOP proposal.

    Senators had made some progress in the talks before Thursday, finding general agreement on raising the initial standard for migrants to enter the asylum system — part of what’s called the credible fear system. The administration has communicated that it is amenable to that change and that it could agree to expand expedited removal to deport immigrants before they have a hearing with an immigration judge, according to two people briefed on the private negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    Immigration advocates and progressives in Congress have been alarmed by the direction of the talks, especially because they have not featured changes aimed at expanding legal immigration.

    Robyn Barnard, director of refugee advocacy with Human Rights First, called the current state of negotiations an “absolute crisis moment.” She warned that broadening the fast-track deportation authority could lead to a mass rounding up of immigrants around the country and compared it to the situation during the Trump administration. “Communities across the country would be living in fear,” she said.

    But Republican senators, sensing that Biden, who is campaigning for a second term, wants to address the historic number of people coming to the border, have taken an aggressive stance and tried to draw the president directly into negotiations.

    “The White House is going to have to engage particularly if Senate Democrats are unwilling to do what we are suggesting be done,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., at a news conference Thursday.

    The White House has so far declined to take a leading role in negotiations. “Democrats have said that they want to compromise. Have that conversation,” said White House press secretary Karine-Jean Pierre.

    After every GOP senator this past week voted not to move ahead with legislation that would provide tens of billions of dollars in military and economic assistance for Ukraine, many in the chamber were left in a dour mood. Even those who held out hope for a deal acknowledged it would be difficult to push a package through the Senate at this late stage.

    Even if senators reach a deal, the obstacles to passage in the House are considerable. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has signaled he will fight for sweeping changes to immigration policy that go beyond what is being discussed in the Senate. Also, broad support from House Democrats is far from guaranteed, as progressives and Hispanic lawmakers have raised alarm at curtailing access to asylum.

    “Trading Ukrainian lives for the lives of asylum seekers is morally bankrupt and irresponsible,” Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, as part of a coordinated campaign by Hispanic Democrats.

    The unwieldy nature of the issue left even Lankford, who was one of the few senators optimistic that a deal could be reached this year, acknowledging the difficulty of finding an agreement in the coming days.

    “There’s just a whole lot of politics that have been bound up in this,” he said as he departed the Capitol for the week. “Thirty years it hasn’t been resolved because it’s incredibly complicated.”

    Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New US aid for Ukraine by year-end seems increasingly out of reach as GOP ties it to border security

    New US aid for Ukraine by year-end seems increasingly out of reach as GOP ties it to border security

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A deal to provide further U.S. assistance to Ukraine by year-end appears to be increasingly out of reach for President Joe Biden. The impasse is deepening in Congress despite dire warnings from the White House about the consequences of inaction as Republicans insist on pairing the aid with changes to America’s immigration and border policies.

    After the Democratic president said this past week he was willing to “make significant compromises on the border,” Republicans quickly revived demands that they had earlier set aside, hardening their positions and attempting to shift the negotiations to the right, according to a person familiar with the talks who was not authorized to publicly discuss them and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The latest proposal, from the lead GOP negotiator, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., came during a meeting with a core group of senators before they left Washington on Thursday afternoon. It could force the White House to consider ideas that many Democrats will seriously oppose, throwing new obstacles in the difficult negotiations.

    Biden is facing the prospect of a cornerstone of his foreign policy — repelling Russian President Vladimir Putin from overtaking Ukraine — crumbling as U.S. support for funding the war wanes, especially among Republicans. The White House says a failure to approve more aid by year’s end could have catastrophic consequences for Ukraine and its ability to fight.

    To preserve U.S. backing, the Biden administration has quietly engaged in Senate talks on border policy in recent weeks, providing assistance to the small group of senators trying to reach a deal and communicating what policy changes it would find acceptable.

    The president is trying to satisfy GOP demands to reduce the historic number of migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border while alleviating Democrats’ fears that legal immigration will be choked off with drastic measures.

    As talks sputtered to a restart this past week, Democrats warned Republicans that time for a deal was running short. Congress is scheduled to depart Washington in mid-December for a holiday break.

    “Republicans need to show they are serious about reaching a compromise, not just throwing on the floor basically Donald Trump’s border policies,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday before Republicans made their counteroffer.

    But the new Republican proposal dug in on policy changes that had led Democrats to step back from the negotiations, according to the person familiar with the talks. The GOP offer calls for ending the humanitarian parole program that’s now in place for existing classes of migrants — Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans and Haitians. That idea had been all but dashed before.

    Additionally, those groups of migrants would not be allowed to be paroled again if the terms of their stay expire before their cases are adjudicated in immigration proceedings.

    GOP senators proposed monitoring systems such as ankle bracelets for people, including children, who are detained at the border and are awaiting parole. Republicans want to ban people from applying for asylum if they have transited through a different country where they could have sought asylum instead. GOP lawmakers also want to revive executive powers that would allow a president to shut down entries for wide-ranging reasons.

    Further, after migrant encounters at the border recently hit historic numbers, the GOP proposal would set new guidelines requiring the border to be essentially shut down if illegal crossings reach a certain limit.

    Lankford declined to discuss specifics after the Thursday meeting, but said he was trying to “negotiate in good faith.” He said the historic number of migrants at the border could not be ignored. The sheer number of people arriving at the border has swamped the asylum system, he said, making it impossible for authorities to adequately screen the people they allow in.

    “Do you want large numbers of undocumented individuals and unscreened individuals without work permits, without access to the rest of the economy?” Lankford said.

    The lead Democratic negotiator, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, did not quickly respond to the GOP proposal.

    Senators had made some progress in the talks before Thursday, finding general agreement on raising the initial standard for migrants to enter the asylum system — part of what’s called the credible fear system. The administration has communicated that it is amenable to that change and that it could agree to expand expedited removal to deport immigrants before they have a hearing with an immigration judge, according to two people briefed on the private negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    Immigration advocates and progressives in Congress have been alarmed by the direction of the talks, especially because they have not featured changes aimed at expanding legal immigration.

    Robyn Barnard, director of refugee advocacy with Human Rights First, called the current state of negotiations an “absolute crisis moment.” She warned that broadening the fast-track deportation authority could lead to a mass rounding up of immigrants around the country and compared it to the situation during the Trump administration. “Communities across the country would be living in fear,” she said.

    But Republican senators, sensing that Biden, who is campaigning for a second term, wants to address the historic number of people coming to the border, have taken an aggressive stance and tried to draw the president directly into negotiations.

    “The White House is going to have to engage particularly if Senate Democrats are unwilling to do what we are suggesting be done,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., at a news conference Thursday.

    The White House has so far declined to take a leading role in negotiations. “Democrats have said that they want to compromise. Have that conversation,” said White House press secretary Karine-Jean Pierre.

    After every GOP senator this past week voted not to move ahead with legislation that would provide tens of billions of dollars in military and economic assistance for Ukraine, many in the chamber were left in a dour mood. Even those who held out hope for a deal acknowledged it would be difficult to push a package through the Senate at this late stage.

    Even if senators reach a deal, the obstacles to passage in the House are considerable. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has signaled he will fight for sweeping changes to immigration policy that go beyond what is being discussed in the Senate. Also, broad support from House Democrats is far from guaranteed, as progressives and Hispanic lawmakers have raised alarm at curtailing access to asylum.

    “Trading Ukrainian lives for the lives of asylum seekers is morally bankrupt and irresponsible,” Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, as part of a coordinated campaign by Hispanic Democrats.

    The unwieldy nature of the issue left even Lankford, who was one of the few senators optimistic that a deal could be reached this year, acknowledging the difficulty of finding an agreement in the coming days.

    “There’s just a whole lot of politics that have been bound up in this,” he said as he departed the Capitol for the week. “Thirty years it hasn’t been resolved because it’s incredibly complicated.”

    ___

    Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans want to pair border security with aid for Ukraine. Here’s why that makes a deal so tough

    Republicans want to pair border security with aid for Ukraine. Here’s why that makes a deal so tough

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — As Congress returns to session this week, lawmakers will be trying to forge an agreement on sending a new round of wartime assistance to Ukraine. But to succeed, they will have to find agreement on an issue that has confounded them for decades.

    Republicans in both chambers of Congress have made clear that they will not support additional aid for Ukraine unless it is paired with border security measures to help manage the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Their demand has injected one of the most contentious issues in American politics into a foreign policy debate that was already difficult.

    Time is short for a deal.

    A small, bipartisan group in the Senate is taking the lead and working to find a narrow compromise that can overcome a likely filibuster by winning 60 votes. But even if they can reach a modest agreement, there is no guarantee it would pass the House, where Republicans are insisting on wholesale changes to U.S. border and immigration policies.

    Republicans hope that Democrats will feel political pressure to accept some of their border proposals after illegal crossings topped a daily average of more than 8,000 earlier this fall. President Joe Biden, who is running for reelection next year, has faced pressure even from fellow Democrats over the migrant flow.

    No matter what, finding compromise will be exceedingly difficult. As they left for Thanksgiving break, Senate negotiators said they were still far apart.

    A look at some of the issues under discussion and why they have proved so difficult to resolve:

    Changing the asylum system for migrants is a top priority for Republicans. They want to make it more difficult for asylum-seekers to prove in initial interviews that they have a credible fear of political, religious or racial persecution in their home country before advancing toward asylum in the United States.

    Republicans in the House have passed legislation that would detain families at the border, require migrants to make the asylum claim at an official port of entry and either detain them or require them to remain outside the U.S. while their case is processed.

    U.S. and international law give migrants the right to seek safety from persecution, but the number of people applying for asylum in the U.S. has reached historic highs. Critics say many people take advantage of the system to live and work in the U.S. while they wait for their asylum claims to be processed in court.

    Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, an independent who is part of the Senate negotiations, said in an Arizona radio interview that one of lawmakers’ goals is to ensure that “those who are here seeking asylum have an actual claim to asylum.”

    Compromise is far from certain. Many Democrats are wary of making it harder to flee persecution, and the details of each policy shift are contentious.

    Hardline conservatives in the House, already unlikely to support further Ukraine aid, have also signaled they won’t accept policy changes that deviate much from a bill passed in May that would have remade the U.S. immigration system. Their stance means at least some support from House Democrats will be needed to pass any agreement — no easy task.

    Some progressives have already said they will oppose any Republican-led changes to immigration policy.

    “The cruel, inhumane, and unworkable solutions offered by Republicans will only create more disorder and confusion at the border,” said Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Lawmakers may find it easier to reach consensus on other areas of border policy, particularly when it comes to border staffing and enforcement.

    Negotiators have looked at steps that could be taken to reinforce existing infrastructure at the border, including hiring and boosting pay for border patrol officers and improving technology. One proposal advanced by a bipartisan group of senators would call for hiring of more border patrol agents, raising their pay and ensuring they receive overtime.

    Biden has shown a willingness to accept tougher enforcement measures, recently resuming deportation of migrants to Venezuela and waiving federal laws to allow for the construction of border wall that began under then-President Donald Trump. The White House also wants to install new imaging technology at ports of entry that would allow authorities to quickly scan vehicles for illegal imports, including fentanyl.

    Republicans say that is not enough. They want more robust improvements, including more expansive construction of a border wall.

    Biden’s emergency request to Congress included aid for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies, along with $14 billion to bolster the immigration system and border security. Money would go toward hiring more border patrol agents, immigration judges and asylum officers. It’s part of Biden’s strategy of trying to simultaneously turn away from Trump’s hard-line policies but adapt to the realities of crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Still, polls indicate widespread frustration with Biden’s handling of immigration and the border, creating a political vulnerability as he seeks reelection. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate Appropriations Committee this month that the administration has been faced with a “global phenomenon” of displaced people migrating in numbers that have not been seen since World War II.

    “It is unanimous that our broken immigration system is in dire need of reform,” Mayorkas said.

    Democrats have other immigration priorities, such as expanding legal immigration pathways or work authorizations for migrants already in the U.S. Democrats have also warned about the danger of delaying aid to Ukraine as it enters another winter of war against Russia.

    Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said it’s a mistake to create a situation where “we have to do significant immigration reform in the next few weeks or we won’t send money to assist the people in Ukraine or other causes important to our national security.”

    Republicans have so far been adamant about the need to address Ukraine and the border at the same time.

    Rep. Mike Turner, a strong supporter of aid to Ukraine and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he thought passing Biden’s package would be “very difficult” to accomplish by year’s end. “The impediment currently is the White House policy on the on the southern border,” said Turner, R-Ohio.

    Lawmakers seem unlikely to address one of the nation’s long-standing immigration issues: granting some form of permanent legal status to thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Republicans have made clear that will not be addressed in this package, which they want to be more narrowly focused on border security measures.

    As Congress struggled to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul, President Barack Obama launched the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 to shield those immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally in the country. But it has been caught up in the courts ever since, and Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, tried to end it when he was in the White House.

    Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the Senate negotiators, would not say early last week whether his side had proposed DACA provisions as part of the talks. But he said any deal “has to respect both Republican and Democratic priorities.”

    “The more Republicans want, the more Democrats are going to want,” Murphy said.

    Republicans argue that Ukraine aid could be a tough sell to some of their voters, and the border policy is the compromise.

    Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican who has been involved in the talks, said before the Thanksgiving holiday that the negotiations were not “very close yet, because Democrats have not yet accepted that the negotiations are not border security for Democratic immigration priorities. It’s border security for Ukraine aid.”

    So far, leaders in both parties have encouraged the talks. But as senators restart their work and face pressure to approve funding by the end of the year, some are warning that a narrow deal is likely the best that they can do.

    “I don’t think it’s realistic to solve anywhere close to the whole problem in the next two weeks,” Murphy said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The debate over Ukraine aid was already complicated. Then it became tangled up in US border security

    The debate over Ukraine aid was already complicated. Then it became tangled up in US border security

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — As war and winter collide, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged during a recent visit to Washington that the days ahead “will be tough” as his country battles Russia while U.S. support from Congress hangs in the balance.

    President Joe Biden’s nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other needs sits idle in Congress, neither approved nor rejected, but subjected to new political demands from Republicans who are insisting on U.S.-Mexico border policy changes to halt the flow of migrants.

    Linking Ukraine’s military assistance to U.S. border security interjects one of the most divisive domestic political issues — immigration and border crossings — into the middle of an intensifying debate over wartime foreign policy.

    When Congress returns this coming week from the holiday break, Biden’s request will be a top item on the to-do list, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Failure risks delaying U.S. military aid to Kyiv and Israel, along with humanitarian assistance for Gaza, in the midst of two wars, potentially undermining America’s global standing.

    “It’s coming at a crucial time,” said Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, which recently hosted Andriy Yermak, the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, at the discussion in Washington.

    “We’re running out of money,” Coffey said in an interview.

    What just a year ago was overwhelming support for Ukraine’s young democracy as it reaches for an alliance with the West to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion has devolved into another partisan fight in the United States.

    Members of Congress overwhelmingly support Ukraine, embracing Zelenskyy as they did when he arrived on a surprise visit last December to a hero’s welcome. But the continued delivery of U.S. military and government aid is losing favor with a hard-right wing of Republican lawmakers and with some Americans.

    Nearly half of the U.S. public thinks the country is spending too much on aid to Ukraine, according to polling from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

    Rather than approve Biden’s request, which includes $61 billion for Ukraine, Republicans are demanding something in return.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has said the “best way” to ensure GOP support for Ukraine is for Biden and Democrats to accept border policy changes that would limit the flow of migrants across the border with Mexico.

    “It’s connected,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

    To that end, a core group of senators, Republicans and Democrats, have been meeting privately to come up with a border policy solution that both parties could support, unlocking GOP votes for the Ukraine aid.

    On the table are asylum law changes pushed by the Republicans that would make it more difficult for migrants to enter the United States, even if they claim they are in danger, and reduce their release on parole while awaiting judicial proceedings. Republicans also want to resume construction of the border wall.

    Democrats call these essentially nonstarters, and the border security talks are going slowly. Those who have worked on immigration-related issues for years see a political disaster in the making for all sides — Ukraine included.

    “I think it’s terrible that we’re in the position we’re in,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

    “But you know, we were talking all through the night and talking all day today,” he said recently, “trying to find a path forward.”

    He added: “I’m not confident we’ll get there.”

    Republicans, even defense hawks who strongly back Ukraine, insist the money must come with U.S. border provisions.

    “The reality is, if President Biden wants Ukraine a to pass we’re going to have to have substantial order policy changes,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., often a McConnell ally on defense issues.

    The White House has requested roughly $14 billion for border security in its broader package, with money for more border patrol officers, detention facilities and judges to process immigration cases. It also includes stepped-up inspections to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl.

    Biden and his national security team recently with key senators of both parties. With Congress narrowly split, Republicans holding slim majority control of the House and Democrats a close edge in the Senate, bipartisan agreement will almost certainly be required for any legislation to advance.

    Pentagon funding for Ukraine is rapidly dwindling. The Defense Department has the authority to take about $5 billion worth of equipment from its stockpiles to send to Ukraine, but only has about $1 billion to replenish those stocks. So military leaders are worried about the effect on U.S. troop readiness and equipping.

    The need for an infusion of funding is growing “by the day” said Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh.

    Overall, half the $113 billion Congress has approved for Ukraine since the war began in February 2022 has gone to the Defense Department, according to the Congressional Research Service. The dollars are being spent to build Ukraine’s armed forces, largely by providing U.S. military weapons and equipment, and replenish U.S. stockpiles.

    Much of the rest goes to emergency and humanitarian aid and to support the government of Ukraine through the World Bank.

    National security experts have watched the Ukrainian forces repurpose outdated American equipment that was headed for decommissioning and use it to obliterate aspects of the Russian armed forces. McConnell has noted that much of the spending stays in the U.S., flowing to defense production in states across the nation.

    “Ukraine is at a critical point,” said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The Russians are just counting on us to give up and walk away — and then they walk in.”

    But even border security provisions may not be enough to with over Republicans who are growing increasingly skeptical of Biden’s vow to support Ukraine as long as it takes to defeat Russia.

    One Republican, Rep. Mike Garcia of California, is trying to bridge the GOP divide by separating the military funds from money the U.S. spends on the Kyiv government, and pushing the Biden administration to be more open about presenting a strategy for the war’s endgame.

    Garcia, who drafted a 14-page report that new Speaker Mike Johnson delivered during a recent White House meeting, said even with border security, Republicans will not approve the full amount for Ukraine that Biden has requested. “If the Ukraine budget part of it is still $61 billion, that ain’t the right answer,” said Garcia, a former Navy fighter pilot who flew combat missions during the Iraq War.

    Other Republicans, led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Donald Trump ally, have drawn an even deeper line against Ukraine aid.

    Yermak, during his talk in Washington, was thankful for U.S. support, and blunt about the need for more.

    “I tell you the truth, this winter will be tough for us,” he said, urging Americans to back Ukraine at this “historical moment for all of us.”

    ___ Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Ellen Knickmeyer and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link