The senior senator from California is a Biden ally — but he came out early and strong against the agreement, which would have been an election-year victory on an issue that’s been a serious drag in the polls for the administration.
Among his chief objections: The package included no path to legal residency for people brought to the U.S. as children or other groups such as farmworkers. “That’s not just a huge injustice, in my opinion, but a significant shift from prior negotiations,” he said.
We caught up with the senator to get his thoughts on what would have been one of the most significant pieces of immigration legislation in years.
This interview was edited for clarity.
You’ve criticized the Senate border security bill for a number of reasons, including the restrictions on asylum and that you and other members of the Hispanic caucus were left out of discussions. What, if anything, is in the bill that you support?
I do think there are some good things in the bill. Additional funding, although not nearly enough, for additional hearing officers and immigration judges to process asylum claims. Part of the challenge here is the volume. The backlog is so great. Less than half the people who seek asylum ultimately receive the protection. But those determinations should come in a matter of weeks or months, not years and years. Ramping up capacity, I guess, is a good thing. But the numbers in the bill aren’t enough along with the token funding for the SSP (Shelter and Services Program). That’s helping local governments and community-based organizations provide support services for migrants.
One thing I want to make clear: I support additional aid to Ukraine. I’m supportive of additional aid to Israel, particularly humanitarian dollars needed for the region, as well as Taiwan and Indo-Pacific. But not at the expense of bad border policy, and that’s my assessment of where the negotiations landed.
So, given the criticism from you and other Democrats, why do you think that President Joe Biden said he would sign the legislation if it passed?
It’s a question for the President. I made my views and concerns clear to him for months now, starting when the negotiations first started when we were hearing rumors about what was on the table. It’s not just what was in the deal that I thought was bad. It’s also pieces that were lacking that should be troubling.
We’ve known from history that enforcement alone does not work. Shutting down the border as Trump did with Title 42 did not work. The numbers actually went up. So why that is the approach yet again makes no sense to me.
If this package would have been approved and signed by the president, not a single ‘dreamer’ would have been helped. Not a single farmworker would have been helped. Not a single essential worker. They need a pathway to legalization and that was not going to be achieved. That’s not just a huge injustice, in my opinion, but a significant shift from prior negotiations. Democrats have always held the line. If we’re going to talk about immigration, we need to balance enforcement — hopefully in a smart way — with relief for long-term residents of the United States who happen to be undocumented, and that seems to be left at the door when these negotiations started.
Why did you decide to break with President Biden now, when you have generally supported the administration, and are you concerned about the political ramifications?
I staked out my position based on what I thought was right and what I thought was wrong. I’m proud to represent the state of California, not just the most populous state in the nation, with the largest economy of any state in the nation, but the most diverse state in the nation with more immigrants than any state in the nation. We know that immigrants contribute to the success and the strength of our communities and our country. We need to stay true to those values.
Did you hear from the administration, either before or after you announced your opposition?
We’ve been talking very regularly for months now. None of this was a surprise.
The bill included a cap on asylum at the southwest border when encounters reach a certain level and would have raised the legal threshold for determining at the initial stage whether someone encountered at the border qualifies for asylum. In your view, what’s wrong with that?
In talking to colleagues — on both sides of the aisle and both those that were at the negotiation table and a lot of others — they made it clear that just raising the standard for seeking asylum wasn’t the ultimate goal. Their ultimate goal was to “drive down the numbers,” that is, the number of people seeking asylum.
My response to them was: You can make it as hard as you want to request asylum, you can build the wall as tall as you want, but you’re not going to “drive down the numbers” unless you address the root causes. Why are so many people wanting to come to the States or feel like they need to come to the United States? The vast majority of people are not coming from Mexico. And I point that out because I think that’s lost in the conversation. They are coming through Mexico, but from other countries. They’re fleeing repressive regimes in Cuba and Venezuela and elsewhere. That used to be non-controversial in the past, but the politics of today, the politics since Donald Trump entered the scene, have changed significantly for Republicans.
So we need to not just identify and address those root causes, and work in partnership with other countries throughout the hemisphere. We have to engage Mexico, Central American countries, South American countries to address a hemispheric migration challenge with a hemispheric solution. And that was not reflected in this border package that was released on Sunday.
The bill would have also given permanent status to the 80,000 Afghan refugees who were admitted to the U.S. on parole after the Taliban returned to power and would have allowed people 21 and over to retain the green card status of their parents. What do you say to those who will now not get that relief, many of whom live in California?
I’m supportive of that and we should move on that, sooner rather than later. The same category that you mentioned, the group of young people referred to as documented dreamers — that’s my bill. It enjoys bipartisan support. The only reason it hasn’t haven’t advanced is that because at every turn Republicans will tell me behind closed doors they are or supportive of this or supportive of that but not until we get the border under control. This was their plan to get the border under control and then they walked away from it. The biggest disappointment and outrage here is bad faith on behalf of Republicans. They say they want a solution, and when they may be on the verge of it they kneel to Trump’s orders that they’ve got to wait until November.
Is one message from this that there’s no room for compromise in this political environment?
Look, I’m not gonna give up. I’ll keep trying. There’s not a day that has gone by since I joined the Senate three years ago that I haven’t tried to engage my colleagues on the topics of modernizing our immigration system, and justice for dreamers, farmworkers and others. And that’s going to continue. I’m not giving up.
This bill was the result of months of bipartisan negotiations and is the first significant piece of immigration legislation to get this far in decades, so what does its apparent failure tell us about the prospects for any action in the future?
I disagree with that. In 2013, there was a package that passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis, but it was never taken up by the House. The House walked away from it under Boehner. In 2018, there was a package that seemed to be well on its way and then Donald Trump at the last minute said, ‘Republican senators vote no,’ and it came up short. In 2024, Republicans say they want to plan to address the border. They sit down and negotiate a package and they’re all going to be no votes. So, we will continue to wait for Republicans to get serious.
Source link
