‘Bipartisan’ Senate Bill Would Keep Border Open
By Joe Guzzardi
Oklahoma Senator James Langford has not officially announced his long-term political goals. But deep-red Oklahoma’s senior senator has done a superb job of shooting himself in the foot by joining up with three open borders advocates in what they laughingly refer to as a bipartisan border agreement. Under Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer’s watchful eyes, Langford’s negotiating colleagues are Arizona Senator Kristen Sinema, a faux Independent who caucuses with Democrats, and blue Connecticut’s Chris Murphy. Sinema and Murphy have consistently voted against border and interior enforcement while favoring amnesty enticements. Neither Sinema nor Murphy, however, have served close to Schumer’s three decades-plus in Congress during which time he has unbendingly fought for higher immigration levels and less enforcement. Up against Schumer and company, Langford is out of his element.
Even the most cursory review of the Senate’s proposed deal shows that the details would not only keep the border open but also encourage more illegal immigration. Leaked details include a disastrous provision that once border crossings reached a seven-day 5,000 rolling daily average, the Department of Homeland Security would have the authority to shut down migration. Daily encounters between 4,000 and 5,000 would allow for discretionary expulsions, and any single day where there were over 8,000 encounters, expulsions would be mandatory even if the 7-day average were lower. Those expulsions would also be exempt from judicial review. Not only would such levels be inconsistent with border security, but President Biden has complete authority to shut the border down tight without more congressional legislation. The legislation would also, say advocates close to the talks, tighten asylum standards, speed up the hearing process, double deportation flights, and expedite work permits. Only expedited work permits are likely to become a reality, a harmful feature that expands the labor force with unskilled workers and takes away jobs from U.S. workers.
Andrew Arthur, a Center for Immigration Studies Resident Fellow in Law and Policy, and a former immigration judge, wrote in his New York Post op-ed that Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens.” Moreover, in 2018, the Supreme Court rejected immigration advocates’ challenges to travel restrictions that President Donald Trump implemented on certain nationals of terrorist hotspots and countries hostile to the United States and wrote that Section 212(f) “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, reflecting most Americans’ sentiments and promising that if the Senate bill should ever reach the House it would be DOA, said that the “goal should be zero illegal crossings a day, not 5,000.” Unlike the Senate trio, Johnson knows that in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, immigration ranked with the economy as the two issues that most troubled voters.
Langford, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, has pushed back against criticism and claims that election year politics and not the bill’s details hamper the Senate process. Voters are increasingly aware that Biden’s lack of political will to enforce existing laws is the main reason the border remains open. Deep skepticism with the White House’s immigration agenda has intensified, and a bad Senate bill will not soothe voters’ immigration anxiety.
Langford got a sample of how getting cozy with Schumer could derail his career. The Oklahoma Republican Party (OKGOP) voted to censure Lankford for his close work with Democrats on border legislation. However, since not all OKGOP members were present, the censure was not official. Still, the vote could be a signal of trouble ahead for Langford.
History’s lesson: Florida Senator Marco Rubio got a rude awakening to the long-term consequences of a Schumer connection. In 2013, only his second full year in office, Rubio was one of four GOP Senators who teamed up with four Democrats including Schumer to pass the disastrous immigration “Gang of Eight” bill, never taken up by the House. Rubio’s betrayal shocked Florida’s Republicans. In 2015, Rubio was one of 17 GOP announced presidential candidates. When the crucial Florida primary time rolled around in March 2016, Rubio needed a win over Donald Trump to remain viable. But Florida’s voters didn’t forget Rubio’s duplicity and overwhelmingly cast their ballots for Trump, 46% to 27%. Once considered a frontrunner, Rubio’s presidential aspirations ended that night.
Langford’s next re-election cycle, should he choose to run, is 2028. Myriad border outcomes could occur in the next six years. But Oklahoma Republicans are unlikely to forget, much less forgive, Langford’s eagerness to join the Democrats to keep the border open and subvert U.S. sovereignty.
Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org
‘Bipartisan’ Senate Bill Would Keep Border Open
This bill also redefines the term flood to be anything that is, on average only 5 feet above the banks of any river, stream or other tributary, over a seven day period, where the totals do not exceed 8 feet over the banks. Those within the flood zone are expected to adhere to these new flood level standards and to conduct their business as though the waters were not waste high so long as the foregoing requirements have been met. If this makes no sense to you, reread the immigration flood bill referenced in this column, since there is no functional difference.
BTW, any republican voting for this absurdity is a Democrat in disguise and any Democrat voting for this is un-American…