Senate’s Border Bill Betrays American Security

In a revelation that reveals the truth about the recently announced bipartisan Senate border bill, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted what many conservatives have long suspected about the deal — the southern border will “never fully close.” The admission uncovers the deep flaws in a bill that claims to address the border crisis but, in reality, does little to assure the American people of their safety and sovereignty.

The Senate released the text of this contentious bill over the weekend, which carries a price tag of $118 billion. Alarmingly, a mere fraction of this amount, only $20 billion, is allocated to actual border security. This is while a staggering $60 billion – exceeding the entire budget of the U.S. Marine Corps – is earmarked for new aid to the corrupt Ukraine government.

At the heart of the controversy is the bill’s approach to migrant processing. It allows the president to direct asylum claims to land ports of entry when over 5,000 individuals cross daily. The bill states, “During any activation of the border emergency authority, the Secretary shall maintain the capacity to process a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens each calendar day.” 

Essentially, this means the border remains operationally open, directly contradicting claims by some Republicans like lead negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who argues the bill is designed to “shut down the border.”

President Donald Trump has lambasted the bill, calling it “horrendous” and a “gift to Democrats.” His critique is shared by many conservatives who view the bill as a capitulation to liberal immigration policies, failing to uphold the firm stance on immigration control that was a hallmark of his administration. 

Some House Republicans have been equally vocal, declaring the bill “dead on arrival in the House.” Their opposition stems from the belief that the legislation falls short in every policy area necessary to secure the border and is likely to incentivize more illegal immigration. This sentiment is echoed by the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives who see the bill as a failure to address the migrant crisis adequately.

Furthermore, the bill’s temporary nature — with the enhanced border authority sunsetting after three years — raises questions about the long-term effectiveness of any measures it introduces. The phased reduction of the number of days the emergency authority can be activated, diminishing from 270 days in the first year to 180 in the third, further dilutes the bill’s potency as a long-term solution to border security.

Critics like Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) have been scathing in their assessment, likening the bill to a “knockoff” deal that does not prioritize border security. 

The bill’s supporters argue it’s a compromise to reduce the number of migrants while not entirely closing the border. However, this ‘middle ground’ approach is precisely what irks many conservatives who see it as a half-measure that falls short of the decisive action needed to tackle illegal immigration.

America First citizens will soon turn their attention to the House, where the resolve of the House Freedom Caucus and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will be tested under heavy fire from establishment Republicans and neoconservatives bent on unending foreign adventuring and aid.