Senate Border Bill Prioritizes Ukraine Over US Security

In a striking revelation of national priorities, the newly proposed Senate border security bill has drawn criticism for allocating disproportionate taxpayer money to Ukraine while giving scant attention to America’s domestic security. The bill, negotiated by Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), proposes $60 billion in new aid for Ukraine, dwarfing the $650 million earmarked for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

This disparity is not just a matter of numbers but a clear indication of our legislators’ priorities. Ukraine, embroiled in an ongoing conflict with Russia, is set to receive 75 times more funding than what is designated for reinforcing America’s borders. This decision comes when the need for enhanced border security is more pressing than ever, as a recent survey shows that 57% of all American voters support building additional border walls.

The bill, part of a $118 billion national security supplemental budget, includes some reforms and limited provisions for border security. According to Lankford, it features crucial measures such as funding for the wall, technology enhancements, additional detention beds, more agents and increased deportation flights. Some of these are steps in the right direction. Still, the allocated amount falls short of what is necessary to secure our borders effectively.

Furthermore, the bill introduces changes to asylum laws and emergency authorities to manage surges at the border. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commended the bill for addressing border crisis solutions, emphasizing the need for America to respond decisively to domestic and international challenges. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also highlighted the bill’s potential to improve the adjudication system and border management.

However, the focus remains heavily skewed toward foreign aid. In addition to the $60 billion to be handed out to Ukraine, it allocates additional funds for Israel and the Indo-Pacific region.

The bill’s fate is uncertain, as it has sparked dissent from both conservative and progressive lawmakers. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has already labeled the deal “dead on arrival” in the House.

As the Senate prepares to vote on this critical piece of legislation, the question remains whether GOP lawmakers, in general, are willing to do enough to protect our borders while forcing taxpayers to continue generously funding foreign causes.