Subject: Re: Appaling
* a border wall
* more security
* more deportations
* a sharply narrowed definition of who is permitted to claim "asylum" status....

As noted several times, no specific descriptions of the proposed compromises are available to the public. But almost certainly at least three of the four above were part of it, and probably all four. The negotiators specifically talked about more funding for more border patrol agents (which would be a GOP ask), and more funding for the immigration courts which has the effect of increasing deportations). And the negotiators were socializing with the Democratic base the likelihood that there would be a revision to asylum criteria, which is a clear indication that changes to those regulations were in play. As for the fourth element, the wall, Democratic opposition has mostly been based on the fact that such a thing is useless, not any philosophical objection (as was clear when that was put on the table back when Trump was President) - so it's highly unlikely that they would balk at funding it if they could get their deal.

Someone upthread suggested the GOP would be better off waiting until next year - the thought being they could do better with Trump in the WH (if that happens) and maybe control in the Senate. That's wrong, I think. Right now, the Democrats are putting all of the above on the table - and forcing their immigrant advocacy faction in the base to just eat it - so they can get Ukraine funding. Democrats are willing to swallow their distaste for the narrower asylum criteria (which many have a moral and philosophical objection to) in order to meet the moment on Ukraine. That disappears by next year.