Not all Republicans are on board with the House border security bill. There are disagreements about some of the provisions or lack of provisions, in the bill. In the case of Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), “glaring problems” have arisen with the bill due to a lack of action detailed in the bill against Mexican drug cartels.

“Of all the things to leave out of a border security bill, you leave out the cartels? Really?” Crenshaw criticized the bill on his social media accounts. He supports most of the border security bill and is working on an amendment to the bill that creates more tools to go after the finances of cartels and anyone who helps them. “I’ve introduced amendments to do that — but so far our leadership has refused to correct this glaring omission and refused to allow an open amendment process,” said Crenshaw, who is in his third term in Congress.

The Republican border bill will help rein in illegal immigration—that’s good.

But it doesn’t do a thing to target the drug cartels.

These cartels have operational control over the border and kill tens of thousands of Americans a year with fentanyl.

You’d think we might…

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 8, 2023

Crenshaw’s concern about truly dealing with the cartels along the border is the only way to stop the flow of deadly drugs into the United States. Mexican drug cartels are operating with impunity, feeling few consequences for their actions. Record numbers of young people in America are dying each month because of the prevalence of Fentanyl. This is a national security risk, not just a humanitarian crisis.

There is one provision in the House border security bill on cartels but it is just a study to determine if cartels should be designated as terrorist organizations. The problem with that is such a designation would create more ways for people to seek asylum in the United States. The Biden administration would embrace that possibility, seeing visions of millions of future Democrat voters in their open borders fever dreams. Crenshaw supports legislation he titled “Declaring War on the Cartels Act”, along with agreeing with the more hawkish Republicans about using military force against cartels in Mexico.

“We must take the cartels seriously and deter them and target them the same way we do terrorists,” the Navy SEAL veteran said when he first introduced his bill aimed at the cartels. “That is the only way to win.”

Earlier this year, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) said it showed a lack of respect for Mexico’s independence and sovereignty to talk about military action against cartels. He said he would campaign against Republicans in Congress who advocate for such action. So, Crenshaw filed a resolution in response that condemned AMLO for political interference in U.S. elections.

So far, there is no commitment from House leadership to bring Crenshaw’s Declaring War on Cartels legislation up for a vote, or any other legislation against cartels.

Crenshaw isn’t the only House Republican with a problem with the bill. Rep. Tony Gonzales fought leadership over the legislation because he said it was too restrictive for legal asylum seekers who are playing by the rules. Gonzales said last month that many of his concerns were stripped out of he bill.

Other Republicans are objecting to the requirements in the bill that employers use E-Verify to make certain their employees are able to legally work in the United States. Some Republicans think this is too much of a burden, especially for farmers who rely on illegal immigrants for workers.

Rep. Tom McClintock of California, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s immigration panel, said Tuesday that Republicans plan to put forward an amendment that would delay implementation of this requirement for the agricultural industry if the Homeland Security secretary believes it would cause a disruption.

The original version of the border bill would require all employers across the country to electronically verify if new hires have authorization to work in the U.S. through a federal system called E-Verify. The requirement would be phased in over time, with a three-year implementation delay for the agricultural industry.

Farm groups had raised concerns that the employment verification mandate would decimate the industry’s workforce, which relies heavily on undocumented workers.

According to the Department of Agriculture, more than 40 percent of hired crop farmworkers do not have legal immigration status.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky also has taken issue with the E-Verify mandate, though for seemingly different reasons than the lawmakers from agricultural districts. In tweets this week, Massie warned that an E-Verify system mandate would give the federal government too much power and compared the provisions to vaccine mandates.

McCarthy only has a five-person majority in the House so he has little wiggle room to get legislation passed in the House. There is little possibility that the bill would be signed into law, though, even if it passed in the House and made it through the Senate and to Biden’s desk. Biden has already said he will veto the bill. Joe Biden doesn’t want border security, I think that is obvious after three years of the Biden border crisis.

And the White House on Monday said President Joe Biden would veto the proposed House legislation if it ever made it to his desk because it would restrict asylum claims and cut a program that allows migrants a chance to stay in the U.S. even if they are Ukranian refugees.

“While we welcome Congress’ engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better,” the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. “Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected.”

The bill is expected to go up for a vote in the House on Thursday.

CORRECTION:

The original headline said Crenshaw is a ‘no’ on the bill. That was incorrect. His office issued a statement:

“The Congressman is not a committed “no” vote on this. He hasn’t decided either way, but had constructive talks with the speaker’s office yesterday about his anti-cartel concerns. Things are moving in a good direction.”

My apologies. – Karen