Congress Nears Deadline on Homeland Security Funding Amid Immigration Dispute
With a partial government shutdown looming, Democratic lawmakers have made overtures to the White House, seeking "dramatic" changes to President Donald Trump's immigration policies. The proposal comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged "forward progress" in discussions between Democrats and Republicans.
The party's list of demands includes requirements for judicial warrants, better identification procedures for Homeland Security officers, new use-of-force standards, and a stop to racial profiling. These changes follow two fatal shootings of protesters by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that "Republicans, the clock is ticking," adding that Democrats' proposals are "exceedingly reasonable." However, Republicans have expressed skepticism about finding common ground on the contentious issue of immigration enforcement.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated that "dramatic changes" are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a funding bill can move forward. Trump agreed to separate DHS spending from other legislation, creating a brief window for negotiations.
The White House has responded with a counterproposal, but details remain unclear. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, said that some proposed changes "seem like nonstarters" for the administration.
Key Democratic demands include:
* Requiring judicial warrants for all uses of force by Homeland Security officers
* Better identification procedures and coordination with local authorities
* Stricter use-of-force policies
* A prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras
Republicans have expressed support for some aspects, such as the requirement for DHS officers to wear body-worn cameras, but oppose many other changes.
As time runs out, lawmakers are considering a possible short-term extension of funding for Homeland Security while negotiations continue. However, Democrats may be hesitant to back another extension, and Republicans could potentially secure votes from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.
The stakes are high as Congress grapples with the consequences of a shutdown, which could lead to travel problems similar to the 43-day closure last year.
With a partial government shutdown looming, Democratic lawmakers have made overtures to the White House, seeking "dramatic" changes to President Donald Trump's immigration policies. The proposal comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged "forward progress" in discussions between Democrats and Republicans.
The party's list of demands includes requirements for judicial warrants, better identification procedures for Homeland Security officers, new use-of-force standards, and a stop to racial profiling. These changes follow two fatal shootings of protesters by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that "Republicans, the clock is ticking," adding that Democrats' proposals are "exceedingly reasonable." However, Republicans have expressed skepticism about finding common ground on the contentious issue of immigration enforcement.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated that "dramatic changes" are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a funding bill can move forward. Trump agreed to separate DHS spending from other legislation, creating a brief window for negotiations.
The White House has responded with a counterproposal, but details remain unclear. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, said that some proposed changes "seem like nonstarters" for the administration.
Key Democratic demands include:
* Requiring judicial warrants for all uses of force by Homeland Security officers
* Better identification procedures and coordination with local authorities
* Stricter use-of-force policies
* A prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras
Republicans have expressed support for some aspects, such as the requirement for DHS officers to wear body-worn cameras, but oppose many other changes.
As time runs out, lawmakers are considering a possible short-term extension of funding for Homeland Security while negotiations continue. However, Democrats may be hesitant to back another extension, and Republicans could potentially secure votes from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.
The stakes are high as Congress grapples with the consequences of a shutdown, which could lead to travel problems similar to the 43-day closure last year.
Can't they just stick to one thing for now? Like, we all agree that body-worn cameras are a good idea but what's the rush to push through other stuff too quickly?
I mean, if you want to negotiate then be open to some compromises, right? Not saying that the proposed changes are bad but it feels like there's a lot of posturing going on here.
It seems like everyone's just trying to save face and get their way rather than actually working towards something.
The fact that we need a partial government shutdown because of it is wild 
. And what's with all the demands from both sides? It feels like they're just trying to out-do each other in a game of "who can be more unreasonable" 
.
. The fact that some changes are being considered, like requiring body-worn cameras and stricter use-of-force policies, is a step in the right direction 
. But we need to make sure that these changes actually get implemented and don't just end up being another example of "grandstanding" 
.
. Like, I know they have their differences, but can't we all just get along? 
Maybe this is the wake-up call they need to realize that they're not gonna win by being obstructionists all the time 
.
and idk how theyre gonna figure it out before the deadline 
requiring judicial warrants for force use and stopping racial profiling is a total no-brainer 
can we just get this resolved already? 
The more I think about it, the more I'm like "dramatic changes" sound pretty good right now 
especially after those fatal shootings in Minneapolis 
️ what's going on with this whole immigration thing tho? like, can't we all just get along? 
i mean, i'm no expert but it seems like both parties are being super unreasonable about it. can someone explain to me why republicans would oppose a ban on racial profiling? that's literally the definition of racism 
️