Does Trump's immigration bill contain poison pills for Senate Dems?

I haven’t had time yet to read the bill myself but Gabe Malor has. He’s smart, a straight shooter, and knows his immigration law. (He’s an occasional guestblogger for us too.) I trust his reading — and his reading is that once Senate Dems dig into the substance of it, they’ll vote no across the board.

Of course, they were going to vote no across the board regardless. But this ought to extinguish even faint hope that McConnell will pick up a few centrists like Joe Manchin or Doug Jones.

The likely dealbreakers come from the new asylum provisions. Trump’s proposal isn’t actually a straightforward “BRIDGE Act for wall” swap, it turns out. It also attempts to limit the asylum application process in certain ways for some, notably minors from Central America. Gabe:

Senate Dems will oppose that if only for fear that giving an inch to the White House now on how people apply for asylum will encourage Trump to try to take a mile later. Remember that district-court decision in the Ninth Circuit that led to a brief squabble between Trump and John Roberts over “Obama judges”? That case was about whether people who cross the border illegally instead of at a lawful port of entry should be eligible for asylum. Yes, said the court, they’re eligible — because that’s what federal law says. Trump didn’t like that. His effort to get Mexico to house asylum applicants while they await a ruling is also part of this battle. POTUS recognizes, correctly, that the asylum process can be abused by immigrants who are seeking economic opportunity rather than freedom for prosecution by gaining them “temporary” access to the country. He’s looking for ways to deprive them of that access.

And precisely because Democrats want that access to continue, even if it means illegals disappearing into the U.S. via catch and release while they await their bogus “asylum” hearing, they’ll hold the line against any attempt to change the process via legislation in even a very specific case like the one Gabe identifies.

But there’s more:

Imagine seven Senate Dems crossing the aisle in the name of bipartisanship and good faith by voting for a White House bill to end the shutdown, then having the left find out that they just handed enormous new power to the courts to deem asylum applications “frivolous.”

Then there’s this, which appears to be more of a drafting error but again won’t help sell the bill to Dems. “CAM” is “Central American minor”:

Here’s the question. Why would the White House include de facto poison pills in their own bill? A poison pill typically happens in cases where a bill enjoys support from a fragile bipartisan coalition; an opponent of the bill will offer an amendment that’ll appeal for ideological reasons to some supporters *and* some opponents. If the amendment passes, the coalition shatters and the bill collapses. The provisions Gabe describes have that feel, that maybe the White House figured Tom Cotton and a few other border hawks would need sweeteners to lock up their votes, but it’s guaranteed to alienate the centrist Dems whose votes are essential to passage. All I can figure is that Trump knew going in that he’d never get seven Democrats to vote for it and so didn’t really bother to try. Better to make sure all Republicans are on board by making the bill more hostile to asylum than to soften it by pandering for Dem votes that probably aren’t coming no matter what.