The rigged Senate border bill lacks any ‘national interest
Border Bill Gives Biden Unprecedented Power
Can you imagine Senate Democrats ever supporting a bill that gave President Donald Trump the power to temporarily ignore provisions he didn’t believe were in the “national interest”? Of course not. Yet one of the most conspicuous parts of the new bipartisan border bill allows Joe Biden to do just that.
Once there is a rolling average of 5,000 border encounters per day for a week, or 8,500 encounters in a single day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be given “emergency authority” and compelled to turn away anyone else who crosses (though there are many exemptions). Most conservatives believe this threshold is already too high. Under 5,000 daily crossings can still amount to nearly 2 million entries per year, which is around double the number of Green Cards we hand out annually.
Yet, on top of that, Biden has the power to unilaterally suspend the closure (for 45 days each year) if he deems it “in the national interest.”
You know, the reason we have political debates in the first place is so we can figure out how to protect the “national interest.” If we had a common understanding of the idea, we’d be a one-party state. But as with other political phrases these days — the “common good” or “democracy,” come to mind — the term “national interest” is meaningless. Democrats, for instance, believe it’s in the national interest to regulate gas stoves and “misinformation.” I believe it’s in the national interest for the executive branch’s power to be limited to its constitutional role and mind its own business.
Indeed, the president can already declare national emergencies. Trump did on the border in 2019 and was called an authoritarian by Democrats. Congress could stop this from happening again by repealing the National Emergencies Act, not by doubling down and handing the executive branch even wider latitude to interpret laws whenever they find it convenient.
Most of the provisions in the bill are so loophole-riddled they are worse than irrelevant. One provision allows administration officers to grant asylum without any oversight from judges, who (at least, theoretically) use a set of criteria to adjudicate these cases. “Asylum” might have been stripped of any real meaning, as well, but it’s a mystery why James Lankford wants to hand Alejandro Mayorkas more autonomy on this front. Or any front. (Again, can you imagine Democrats signing onto a bill that handed Chad Wolf more discretion over asylum cases?)
Then again, if there are any legal fights over the implementation of the law, Democrats have cherry-picked the court that will adjudicate. No, not the Fifth Circuit, which inconveniently sits on the border, but the left-wing D.C. District Court will have exclusive authority over “written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure” and their implementation.
Meanwhile, Democrats are acting as if they’ve made some giant, historic concession even deigning to address the crisis. But where is the compromise? They’ve rigged the bill, making it so malleable that Biden can basically interpret and implement its provisions in any fashion he chooses. (Only on the enforcement side, naturally. There is no opting out of Ukraine aid or more taxpayer-funded asylum lawyers.) Then, Democrats ensured that the court hearing any disputes over that implementation would almost surely side with them.
And lest anyone think I’m some kind of hardline closed-border type, I’m fine with more asylum-seekers and more immigration and more work visas. High walls and wide gates, etc. Like many Americans, though, I’m just not a fan of policies that perpetuate anarchy.
About the Author
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.
What are the shortcomings of the bill in addressing the root causes of illegal immigration and providing meaningful solutions for asylum-seeking procedures at the border
A noble concept to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution, but without proper checks and balances, it can be easily exploited. This provision in the bill opens up the possibility of abuse, as administration officers can now unilaterally grant asylum without any judicial oversight.
Furthermore, the bill includes a section that grants Biden the power to waive environmental laws within 100 miles of the border for the construction of physical barriers. While it is important to address border security, sacrificing environmental protections for expediency is a dangerous precedent to set. It undermines the importance of environmental stewardship and disregards the potential long-term consequences of such actions.
This bill also fails to address the root causes of illegal immigration. It focuses solely on enforcement measures at the border without considering the economic and social factors that drive individuals to undertake the perilous journey. To truly address the issue, comprehensive immigration reform that tackles the economic disparities, violence, and lack of opportunities in countries of origin is necessary. Simply increasing border security without addressing these underlying issues is a shortsighted approach that will not yield lasting solutions.
In addition, the bill does not provide meaningful solutions for the processing and asylum-seeking procedures at the border. It does not allocate sufficient resources to expedite the asylum process, resulting in prolonged detention and uncertainty for individuals seeking protection. This bill fails to prioritize the humane treatment of migrants and instead perpetuates a system that often leaves individuals in limbo.
It is evident that this border bill grants President Biden unprecedented power, allowing him to bypass provisions he deems contrary to the “national interest” and suspending closures without adequate justification. This concentration of power in the executive branch undermines the checks and balances system that is fundamental to a healthy democracy.
Rather than hastily passing legislation that expands executive authority and fails to address the underlying issues, Congress should take a step back and engage in bipartisan discussions to develop comprehensive immigration reform. Such a reform should prioritize border security while upholding fundamental human rights, address the root causes of migration, and ensure a fair and efficient asylum process.
Ultimately, the national interest should be safeguarded through a collaborative approach that respects the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability. Giving unprecedented power to any president, regardless of political affiliation, sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the fabric of our democratic institutions. It is crucial that all branches of government work together to find sustainable and balanced solutions to the complex issue of immigration.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
