The US Senate defeated the proposed Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024 by a 49-50 vote on Wednesday, preventing it from advancing to the House of Representatives. The proposed bill, which Senate negotiators had been developing since October, had earmarked a total of $118B toward select national security interests including US border security, Ukraine aid, Israel assistance, Gaza aid, Indo-Pacific ally support and China deterrence, and Red Sea conflict support.
Disagreement over the bill centered primarily around its new border security provisions, which included:
- Stricter standards for granting individuals asylum (safe harbor in the US due to perceived threats of safety or persecution to an individual in their home country)
- A new “expulsion authority” that would permit the executive branch to expel most migrants without asylum consideration when unauthorized border crossings hit a specific daily threshold
- Augmentation of border security staff and technology
- Retention of the President’s authority to grant humanitarian parole in select cases
- Modest expansion of available green cards for immigrants already in the US
The defeated bill’s “expulsion authority” was one of its most controversial components. It would have given the executive branch power to deny asylum to and expel most migrants found crossing between ports of entry once encounters with such migrants reached a daily average of 4,000 over a 1-week period. It would have required use of this authority once the daily average hit 5,000.
Debate swirled among lawmakers and experts around the bill’s “expulsion authority” provision and other border changes. Despite the bill’s defeat (and ultimate replacement with a package excluding most border provisions), it stands to inform future debate on border security and immigration policy. Below are notable viewpoints from multiple sides to help you learn more about the issue and form a viewpoint of your own.
Notable viewpoints
The bill does not do enough to improve border security.
- The “expulsion authority” thresholds permit too many illegal immigrants to enter and potentially remain in the US.
- The bill’s provisions, such as guaranteed eligibility for work permits to certain individuals granted asylum, will encourage illegal border crossings.
- Individuals crossing the border illegally should not have the right to be processed for asylum and should be expelled.
- Detention is underutilized and would be less expensive to the taxpayer than “alternatives to detention” (ATD) emphasized in the bill.
The bill is an improvement over the current border situation and should be passed.
- The deal reduces the “catch-and-release” practice of releasing detained illegal migrants into the US; had the deal already been in place, an estimated 1M illegal migrants would have been expelled over the past 4 months.
- The deal will significantly strengthen border security by increasing the number of available border patrol agents, asylum officers, and drug screening devices compared to today.
- “Alternatives to detention” (ATD), emphasized in the bill, are more humane for immigrants and are less expensive to the taxpayer than detention.
The bill does not do enough to help immigrants.
- “Expulsion authority” thresholds and stricter standards for asylum approval are not consistent with international human rights ideals and will make matters worse for asylum seekers in Mexico.
- The bill excludes new pathways to citizenship and protection from deportation for “Dreamers” – undocumented immigrants that entered the US as children – which pro-immigration reformers have been advocating on humanitarian grounds for years.
- The bill should allocate a greater number of green cards for workers to more adequately align to US economic and social goals.
- The bill should include new processes for migrants who want to work in the US temporarily.
Biden should do more to secure the border without asking for congressional support.
- Based on existing law and Supreme Court precedent, including Trump v. Hawaii (2018), President Biden already has executive power to tighten security at the border and turn away asylum seekers.
Biden can’t do more to secure the border without congressional support.
- Based on existing law and precedent, including Trump v. Hawaii (2018), President Biden does not have executive authority to turn away migrants who are encountered on US soil without due process and would have difficulty doing so without congressional support.
Passing the bill would politically benefit Democrats and hurt Republicans.
- In this 2024 election year, passing the bill would alleviate Democrats from blame for the current border situation in the eyes of voters and weaken immigration as a core campaign issue for Republicans.
Passing the bill is the best chance Republicans have at border reform for the foreseeable future.
- If the bill is not passed, Democrats are likely to demand more in return during future border negotiations even if Donald Trump wins the 2024 Presidential Election.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Share your perspective on the Senate border bill and we might feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Email or DM us in the format of your choosing (video, audio, or text). Below are potential discussion topics to consider.
- Would you have supported passing the emergency national security bill or opposed it?
- Do you think passing the bill would have helped or hurt current border conditions?
- Where do you stand on immigration policy and how does your stance fit into your views on the bill?
Give us your feedback! Let us know how we can improve.
#BTW
When Steely Dan interrupts a phone call.
