Senate becomes ground zero for border politics

It’s pretty rare these days for the Senate to vote on a bill as obviously doomed as the border deal negotiated over the winter. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a second vote on it will take place Thursday anyway, for a simple reason: The politics around it have shifted. Donald Trump is now definitively the presumptive nominee, Republicans are hammering the most vulnerable Democratic senator with immigration ads and Democrats are eager to create a fresh contrast with the GOP — and line up a possible precursor to more executive action by President Joe Biden if the vote fails. The bill “is much needed. I think that we need to restore order,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who is up for reelection in a swing state this fall. “Republicans negotiated a bill with Democrats, they only backed off when Donald Trump instructed them to because he wanted an issue to run on and didn’t want it to be fixed. And that is irresponsible.” Thursday’s vote is expected to be similar to the February roll call, with a handful of defections possible in each party (Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said he’s a “big no,” for example). The GOP already rejected it once after Trump turned on the legislation, and there’s a recess scheduled for next week — not exactly a sign there’s much confidence it will get 60 votes to advance. The messaging: GOP Sens. “Cruz, Scott and every other Republican Senate candidate lost their message on the border when they came out against a border security bill written by members of their own party and backed by border patrol agents,” said David Bergstein, a spokesperson for Democrats’ campaign arm. “It will be a major line of attack against their candidates — the ads write themselves.” Republicans are not engaging with Democratic entreaties to open up debate on the bill and offer amendments. They still see immigration as a winning issue for their party that they can hammer Democrats on heading into November, but they aren’t particularly eager to revisit the months-long border talks and their quick death at the hand of Trump. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) dismissed the vote as “all political.” “Most people see this for what it is: And that is sort of a naked attempt by the Democrats to get political cover on an issue that is a huge political liability for all of the folks that are running this year,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “This is not a serious attempt to have a debate on this.” If you are a Democrat running in a tough state, a vote for asylum and parole reforms negotiated with Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is a good tactic; you can say you supported some of the strongest border policies in decades. It’s an approach informed by Sen. Maggie Hassan’s (D-N.H.) strategy last cycle, when she surprised Democrats with a tough-on-border approach that was mocked by Republicans. She ended up winning reelection handily (some Democrats told us they think she’s a good model for how to win in swing states these days). National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Mike Berg said that “no voter is going to believe Democrats are now the party of border security after watching their actions on the issue for the last decade.” It’ll take until November to see whether any of the border votes actually move the needle. In the interim, GOP opposition to the bill helps create a contrast on an issue which Democrats have been struggling with this cycle. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), said putting the bill on the floor is the “right thing to do.” “The same people who’ve been down to the border and want to fix the border voted against fixing the border when we had a chance,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) in an interview last week. “That was a good bill, we should have passed it. And it’s unfortunate that people did it for political reasons; look, my opponent didn’t even read the bill and said he would have voted against it.” A hypothetical: If the bill somehow cleared the Senate, Speaker Mike Johnson has already said (again) that it’s dead on arrival in the House. Of course, his chamber has already passed their preferred border bill: H.R. 2. Maybe they could go to conference! — Burgess Everett, Ursula Perano and Anthony Adragna A message from American Beverage: America’s leading beverage companies – The Coca-Cola Company, Keurig Dr Pepper and PepsiCo – are bringing you more choices with less sugar. From sparkling, flavored and bottled waters to zero-sugar sodas, sports drinks, juices and teas, Americans have more options than ever. In fact, nearly 60% of beverages sold today have zero sugar. Families are looking for more choices to support their efforts to find balance and America’s beverage companies are delivering. Explore choices at BalanceUS.org. GOOD EVENING! Welcome to Inside Congress, the play-by-play guide to all things Capitol Hill, on this Monday, May 20, where we can smell the Memorial Day BBQs already. TROUBLE ON GARLAND CONTEMPT House GOP leadership is seeing early signs of pushback as they weigh a vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. Republican leadership staff conducted a temperature check during a Friday meeting with senior GOP staffers, who expressed some skepticism and reservations, three people familiar with the meeting told us. The contempt resolutions aren’t expected to come up this week on the floor, but that doesn’t mean the door is closed. Two of the people familiar with Friday’s meeting added that it was too early to know if a Garland resolution could squeak by the GOP’s incredibly narrow majority. Complicating the whip count: Biden-district Republicans — as well as GOP lawmakers from the conference’s governing wing — have largely not weighed in yet. As we reported late last week, at least one is openly skeptical, and there’s a broader frustration within the conference after the Oversight Committee’s vote went off the rails on Thursday night. — Jordain Carney and Olivia Beavers A message from American Beverage: Advertisement Image ICC AND DEMS: IT’S COMPLICATED Both congressional Democratic leaders slammed the International Criminal Court’s plan to seek arrest warrants for top Israel officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — but they were noncommittal on a legislative response. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement that the arrest warrants were “shameful and unserious,” seconding President Joe Biden’s condemnation of the warrants. Schumer called the ICC decision “reprehensible” and added he wasn’t surprised because “for decades and decades the ICC has shown it harbors deep biases against Israel.” But neither Democrat opened the door to placing sanctions on the ICC, as Speaker Mike Johnson floated earlier Monday. That could open up yet another complicated vote for the left on Israel, as some Democratic lawmakers have already made it clear they’re furious with the ICC and others have hailed the organization’s move. Republicans have almost unanimously condemned the ICC’s decision. “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on X. “Ditto for Hamas leader.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.