Chris Murphy Says Republicans Are “Allergic to Solving” Border

It wasn’t the ideal border bill—even for Chris Murphy, its lead Democratic negotiator. It didn’t provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, for instance, and Democrats gave more to Republicans than they got from it. But to the senator from Connecticut, it was the best compromise either side was going to reach, so he is appalled that Donald Trump and his allies in the GOP-held House killed it. “If Republicans couldn’t accept this deal on immigration,” he told me, “there’s no deal they’re going to accept.”

In a conversation with Vanity Fair, edited for clarity and length, Murphy talked about Republicans’ bad-faith approach on the immigration issue, the stakes for American foreign policy in this November’s election, and why he thinks Democrats need to make border security a bigger priority. “Most people in America think that we should have legal immigration but believe that our border is out of control,” Murphy said. “But they look at a political structure in which one side wants to totally shut down…and the other side sometimes doesn’t seem to care much about the border.”

Vanity Fair: Do you get the sense that, when you’re negotiating with Republicans, you’re defining the “crisis” in the same way? Or does it seem like you’re talking about different things?

Chris Murphy: It’s not an easy answer. It’s true that Republicans largely view the crisis as simply having to do with too many people coming into the country, whereas Democrats have viewed the issue of immigration more through the prism of the impact on the individuals who are coming. But increasingly, my party does view what is happening at the border as unsustainable. And I will say, one of my critiques of the party has been that we have sometimes exclusively focused on immigration through the lens of those that are here instead of also focusing on creating a secure border. We can do both at the same time. We can care deeply about and try to improve the lives of migrants but also make clear that the current state of the border is unacceptable.

It’s probably understating it to say that you’ve been frustrated at the way Republicans tanked this bill. I’m wondering how you now view the potential for working across the aisle. When we’ve talked before, you’ve expressed confidence in the potential for bipartisanship on specific issues, even with some pretty right or even pro-Trump figures. But when you look at how much bad faith there was, even around this kind of policy they say they want, what kind of hope is there for other stuff?

There are two answers to that question. I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Republicans are always going to approach the issue of immigration with bad faith. Their head may tell them they want to compromise, but their hearts are allergic to solving the problem. Republicans are deeply fearful of a day in which they can’t exploit the border as a crisis, and they are never going to take steps to let that day arrive. So maybe I was naive. Maybe I should have known this from the start. But I’ve come to the conclusion that if Republicans couldn’t accept this deal on immigration, there’s no deal they’re going to accept. But I have not given up on bipartisanship writ large. I think between now and the election, it’s pretty clear Republicans are going to fold into the Trump political operation, and the Trump political operation is not going to support any big bipartisan compromise with Democrats. So I think, unfortunately, not many big bipartisan moments are coming in the next six-to-eight months. But I still believe that this place can build compromise. And I still believe there are just enough Republicans in the Senate interested in doing deals.

When you talk about not a lot of bipartisan compromises coming, does that include foreign aid? You’ve indicated some confidence that that can be passed on its own, but that would seem as vulnerable, if not more so, given the House GOP position on Ukraine, for example.

Our only choice in the Senate is to pass this bill with a big bipartisan vote. And hopefully, if this passes, we’ll get 70 votes, and it will send a really important signal. (Note: After we spoke, the foreign aid package passed 70-29 in the Senate. It faces more uncertainty in the House, though Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has expressed confidence that he could get it through.) But I can’t control what happens in the House, and I can’t control what happens inside the MAGA movement. Once Trump turned his sights on the immigration deal, it was dead. My worry is that Trump and his movement are going to increase their attacks on aid for Ukraine, and the same thing that happened on the immigration deal will happen on Ukraine. So I’m definitely worried that Trump is making it increasingly clear: He wants Putin to win this war, and he’s going to instruct his movement to act accordingly.