Senate Democrats said on Wednesday that they would put forth legislation by Thursday to codify their conditions for continuing to fund the Department of Homeland Security, moving quickly to lay out their demands for new restrictions on federal agents carrying out President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
But as the bipartisan talks get underway before a Feb. 13 deadline, Republicans are already balking at many of Democrats’ proposals. Those include unmasking agents, requiring that they wear visible identification and mandating judicial warrants.
The clash reflects a fundamental divide between the two parties over whether Mr. Trump’s deportation drive should be carried out according to standard norms of policing in America, as Democrats are demanding, or must be given a special status of secrecy, speed and bare-knuckled tactics, as many Republicans have insisted.
The dispute helps explain why reaching any deal to continue funding for the Department of Homeland Security and enact new limits on immigration enforcement is a steep uphill battle.
“All we’re asking is that this federal law enforcement agency operate like every other law enforcement agency operates in the country, that they hold themselves to the same standard that your local police is held to,” said Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of the Democratic leadership. “You would not tolerate it if a cop, fully masked without identification, snatched someone off the street in broad daylight without a warrant or due process.”
“No more anonymous agents,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader. “No secret operatives.”
Republicans have shown little appetite for the ban on masks and mandate for visible identification, saying that border agents have been doxxed and harassed for their work and that they merited special protection.
“In today’s world, I could take a picture of you and I guarantee you within 12 hours, I will have facial recognition of you, and then I dox you,” said Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, who said he would oppose any mask ban. “If you are in an active, potentially dangerous situation, I’ve got no problem with them putting a mask on.”
Other Republicans have accused Democrats of “demonizing” federal agents. They said that Democrats’ demands were intended to make it difficult to make immigration arrests and reduce the effectiveness of the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
“What’s really happening is they don’t want immigration laws enforced, so they are going to look for every way to not have them enforced,” said Senator Eric Schmitt, Republican of Missouri.
Among the new requirements that Democrats are seeking is that agents obtain judicial warrants when making arrests and entering homes. Federal immigration officers currently use administrative warrants, issued by the executive branch, when doing so. Other law enforcement officers are generally required under the Fourth Amendment to obtain arrest warrants from judges, based on probable cause that a crime was committed.
The Department of Homeland Security is actively lobbying against any changes to its warrant requirements. On Tuesday, its employees distributed a one-page document to lawmakers’ offices that maintained that undocumented immigrants “aren’t entitled” to the same constitutional warrant protections that U.S. citizens are.
The document, copies of which were viewed by The New York Times, also said that ICE officers were allowed to enter homes without a judicial warrant if they were arresting people who were facing a final order of removal from the country. Any suggestion otherwise, according to the document, had been pushed by “deep-state actors in the federal government.”
Speaker Mike Johnson said House Republicans, who would need to pass any deal negotiated by the Senate, refused to back any new warrant requirements.
“Adding a whole new layer of judicial warrant requirements is an unworkable proposal,” he said on Tuesday, adding that it would take “decades” for judges to issue warrants for every immigration case.
Unhappy that Democrats are exerting so much leverage in the funding fight, Republicans have made their own demands. They are pushing for limits on or penalties for so-called sanctuary cities, the localities that limit or bar local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials.
“Personally, I want to end sanctuary city policies,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Senate Republican. “So do many other Republicans.”
The structure of any talks remains fluid, with the temporary bill providing funding for the Homeland Security Department scheduled to lapse by Feb. 14.
If it lapses, immigration enforcement agencies could continue operating by using the large tranche of money that Republicans allocated in last year’s domestic policy bill. But agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard would lose funds.
Mr. Schumer said on Wednesday that Democrats would be presenting a “tough, strong” legislative proposal to congressional Republicans and the White House within the next day.
Two key negotiators appear to be the leaders of the Appropriations subcommittee that controls homeland security spending, Senator Katie Britt, Republican of Alabama and the chairwoman, and Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat. Mr. Schatz and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, as well as Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who chairs the panel, are also expected to be involved.
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, put the responsibility for reaching an agreement on Senate Democrats and the White House, who cut a deal last week to allow the rest of the government to be funded while they pursued talks on immigration enforcement limits.
“Ultimately, that’s going to be a conversation between the president of the United States and the Democrats here in the Senate,” Mr. Thune said. “What I hope it doesn’t devolve into is something that makes it harder, not easier, to deport and detain dangerous, illegal aliens in this country.”
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said that Mr. Trump would be the “ultimate decider” of what would be acceptable to the administration.
“What I will tell you,” Ms. Leavitt said, “is the president is never going to waver in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws and protecting the public safety of the American people and his ardent support of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol who, unfortunately, the Democrat Party has made a decision to demonize.”
Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, primarily writing about Congress and national political races and issues. He has nearly four decades of experience reporting in the nation’s capital.
The post In Spending Talks, Senators Clash Over Immigration Crackdown appeared first on New York Times.
