Editorial: Release aid to Ukraine. Helping our allies should not be contingent on U.S. border policies
On Tuesday Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to meet with President Biden, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and U.S. senators as Congress continues to stall on approving Biden’s request for $61.4 billion in new assistance for Ukraine.
Zelensky is an eloquent advocate for his victimized nation, and perhaps his presence in Washington will nudge lawmakers to act. But it shouldn’t require a plea from Zelensky for Congress to approve Biden’s proposal for supplemental funding, which also includes aid for Israel and Taiwan and expenditures for border security.
To the delight of Vladimir Putin, further U.S. support for Ukraine is in real doubt for the first time since Russia invaded 21 months ago.
As Biden noted last week, U.S. assistance has enabled Ukraine to deny Russia a victory on the battlefield, a monumental accomplishment given the imbalance of power between the two countries. But a Ukrainian counteroffensive has had disappointing results and Russia is not relenting in its attacks. On Monday, according to Ukrainian officials, Russia attacked the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv with eight long-range ballistic missiles.
For Ukraine to continue to defend itself effectively — a precondition for any negotiated peace agreement — a new infusion of assistance is vital. Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, warned Congress in a letter to Johnson that “without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from U.S. military stocks.”
The biggest worry for Ukrainians is what’s happening in Washington: Will the U.S. continue to help, and with what level of support?
Yet Republicans are holding aid for Ukraine hostage to their demand for concessions from the Biden administration on immigration policy. Last week they blocked a proposal to move the supplemental funding bill forward in the Senate. “House and Senate Republicans remain united and have been clear from the beginning that national security begins at our own borders,” Johnson said.
A cruder version of this argument came from Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) who complained on social media that the “Washington Swamp continues to be more concerned with stopping the Russian invasion of Ukraine than stopping the invasion of America at the Southern Border.”
Biden has said he is open to “substantive changes” in immigration policy, in addition to funding for border security and an increase in the number of immigration judges. One possible change would be to adjust the legal standard for deciding whether migrants seeking asylum have a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country.
But Republicans are pressing for even more drastic changes, including restrictions on “humanitarian parole,” a process that allows migrants to bypass the regular immigration system for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or to achieve “significant public benefit.”
Russia fired eight ballistic missiles at Kyiv, all of which were shot down, during the capital city’s nightly curfew, Ukraine’s Air Force said.
Unfortunately, congressional Republicans seem averse to reasonable compromise. In a letter to Young, Johnson reiterated that new aid to Ukraine was dependent on a “transformative change to our nation’s border security laws.” That is a goal Republicans are free to pursue without entangling it with aid to Ukraine. In fact, the Republican-controlled House has already passed a separate draconian immigration bill. (Johnson also renewed his call for the administration to provide answers about its Ukraine strategy.)
Ideally, Zelensky will succeed, where Biden so far has failed, in convincing Congress that the needs of his nation — and the paramount importance of deterring Russia from further aggression — requires continued and steadfast U.S. support.
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
