As clock ticks, new hur­dle emerges in bor­der se­cu­rity talks

Democrats want to limit num­ber of im­mi­grants that ICE can de­tain

Albuquerque Journal - - FRONT PAGE - AS­SO­CI­ATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Bar­gain­ers clashed Sun­day over whether to limit the num­ber of mi­grants au­thor­i­ties can de­tain, toss­ing a new hur­dle be­fore ne­go­tia­tors hop­ing to strike a bor­der se­cu­rity com­pro­mise for Congress to pass this com­ing week. The White House wouldn’t rule out a re­newed par­tial govern­ment shut­down if a deal isn’t reached.

With the Fri­day dead­line ap­proach­ing, the two sides re­mained sep­a­rated by hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars over how much to spend to con­struct Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s promised bor­der wall. But ris­ing to the fore was a re­lated dis­pute over curb­ing Cus­toms and Im­mi­gra­tion En­force­ment, or

ICE, the fed­eral agency that Repub­li­cans see as an em­blem of tough im­mi­gra­tion poli­cies and Democrats ac­cuse of of­ten go­ing too far.

Act­ing White House chief of staff Mick Mul­vaney said Sun­day that “you ab­so­lutely can­not” elim­i­nate the pos­si­bil­ity of an­other shut­down if a deal is not reached over the wall and other bor­der mat­ters. The White House had asked for $5.7 bil­lion, a fig­ure re­jected by the Demo­cratic-con­trolled House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, and the mood among bar­gain­ers has soured.

“You can­not take a shut­down off the ta­ble, and you can­not take $5.7 (bil­lion) off the ta­ble,” Mul­vaney said, “but if you end up some­place in the mid­dle, yeah, then what you prob­a­bly see is the pres­i­dent say, ‘Yeah, OK, and I’ll go find the money some­place else.’ ”

A con­gres­sional deal seemed to stall even af­ter Mul­vaney con­vened a bi­par­ti­san group of law­mak­ers at Camp David, the pres­i­den­tial re­treat in north­ern Mary­land. While the two sides seemed close to clinch­ing a deal late last week, sig­nif­i­cant gaps re­main and mo­men­tum ap­pears to have slowed. Though con­gres­sional Demo­cratic aides as­serted that the dis­pute had caused the talks to break off, it was ini­tially un­clear how dam­ag­ing the rift was. Both sides are ea­ger to re­solve the long-run­ning bat­tle and avert a fresh clo­sure of dozens of fed­eral agen­cies that would be­gin next week­end if Congress doesn’t act by Fri­day.

“I think talks are stalled right now,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Sun­day. ”I’m not con­fi­dent we’re go­ing to get there.”

But Mul­vaney did sig­nal that the White House would pre­fer not to have a repeat of the last shut­down, which stretched more than a month, left more than 800,000 govern­ment work­ers with­out pay­checks, forced a post­pone­ment of the State of the Union ad­dress and sent Trump’s poll num­bers tum­bling. As sup­port in his own party be­gan to splin­ter, Trump sur­ren­dered af­ter the shut­down hit 35 days with­out getting money for the wall.

The fight over ICE de­ten­tions goes to the core of each party’s view on im­mi­gra­tion.

Repub­li­cans fa­vor tough en­force­ment of im­mi­gra­tion laws and have lit­tle in­ter­est in eas­ing them if Democrats refuse to fund the Mex­i­can bor­der wall. Democrats de­spise the pro­posed wall and, in re­turn for bor­der se­cu­rity funds, want to curb what they see as un­nec­es­sar­ily harsh en­force­ment by ICE.

Peo­ple in­volved in the talks say Democrats have pro­posed lim­it­ing the num­ber of im­mi­grants here il­le­gally who are caught in­side the U.S. — not at the bor­der — that the agency can de­tain. Repub­li­cans say they don’t want that cap to ap­ply to im­mi­grants caught com­mit­ting crimes, but Democrats do.

In a series of tweets about the is­sue, Trump used the dis­pute to cast Democrats as soft on crim­i­nals. He charged in one tweet: “The Bor­der Com­mit­tee Democrats are be­hav­ing, all of a sud­den, ir­ra­tionally. Not only are they un­will­ing to give dol­lars for the ob­vi­ously needed Wall (they over­rode rec­om­men­da­tions of Bor­der Pa­trol ex­perts), but they don’t even want to take mud­er­ers into cus­tody! What’s go­ing on?”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.