House's failure to approve aid comes at a cost
Republican lawmakers looked like hypocrites earlier this month when they failed to pass a bipartisan border security measure. Hypocrites because for years they have described the U.s.-mexico border in catastrophic terms, railing against surges in illegal immigration, declaring an “invasion” at the southern border, demanding a tightening of asylum laws.
But when faced with legislation that largely addressed these concerns, legislation the Border Patrol union supported, Republicans suddenly balked. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who visited Eagle Pass in January to witness the border crisis, declared the bill dead on arrival in February.
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who had at one time championed the bipartisan negotiations, said, “This proposal is not what the country needs, wants or deserves.”
That legislation would have toughened asylum laws, sped up asylum decisions, increased detention capacity and created a new authority similar to Title 42 to deter migrants from attempting to cross the border between ports of entry.
Rather than embrace these security measures, Republican lawmakers opted for the status quo. Perhaps because this hypocrisy was so glaring — is there a crisis at the border or not? — it overshadowed the other consequences of the bill’s failure.
While the bill’s demise was weeks ago, which is ancient history in today’s news cycle, the consequences of this inaction are only now truly coming into focus. Included in the border bill was aid to Ukraine and Israel. Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, as well as Israel and Taiwan. But whether this aid package advances is unclear. The House is in recess, and even though the aid package would almost certainly pass, it may never come to a vote.
The implications are immense, potentially destabilizing Europe while emboldening Russia and China. There are costs to isolationist thinking. Last week Ukraine withdrew from the eastern
town of Avdiivka, following months of heavy fighting. Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed Russian forces will push deeper into Ukraine. At the same time, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, a hero, mysteriously died in an Arctic prison.
As Putin flexes his power and war in Ukraine drags on, it’s paramount U.S. lawmakers demonstrate their commitment to democracy and freedom abroad. Supporting Ukraine is not a burden. Rather it is in our national interest to oppose authoritarianism and demonstrate solidarity with democracy and freedom.
And yet in a recent meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, leading U.S. lawmakers could only offer the hope of a possible House vote. The decision should be a slam dunk. Much of the spending would actually occur in the United States through domestic weapons manufacturing, and supporting Ukraine has the net effect of draining Russian resources.
It does not help that former President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO.
It could be argued, foolishly, that these are not the United States’ problems. That in a world of scarce resources, it is not the responsibility of the United States to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian forces. But as history has shown, the world’s problems have a way of coming home.
We opposed linking aid for Ukraine with the border security measure. We believed both issues deserved to be addressed on their own merits, not used as bargaining chips. Regardless, the cost of congressional inaction on both fronts is coming into full view.
World's problems won't stop at U.S. shores