Democrats Split as Veteran GOP Rep's Antisemitism Bill Ignites Immigration Fury

Paul Riverbank, 6/10/2025The House's passage of two antisemitism resolutions reveals deep partisan fissures in Congress. While a focused bipartisan measure passed unanimously, a Republican-led resolution linking antisemitism to immigration policy sparked Democratic opposition, highlighting how political divisions can complicate even seemingly straightforward condemnations of hate.

Last week's dual votes tell a fascinating story. While lawmakers unanimously supported a straightforward condemnation of antisemitism (passing 400-0), they fractured dramatically over a related measure that ventured into immigration territory. The more controversial resolution, championed by Colorado Republican Gabe Evans, passed 280-113 but left a trail of bitter exchanges in its wake.

What's particularly striking about this situation - and I've watched plenty of congressional drama unfold - is how quickly the debate shifted from addressing antisemitism to trading personal barbs. When House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries dismissed Evans as "a joke" and questioned "Who is this guy?", he inadvertently transformed a policy debate into a personal confrontation.

Evans, drawing from his background as a former police officer and military veteran, didn't take the slight lying down. His response on social media highlighted his service record and suggested Jeffries' attitude exemplified why antisemitism persists - a loaded claim that further intensified the already heated atmosphere.

I've noticed a troubling pattern in recent years where legitimate concerns about antisemitism become entangled with other hot-button issues. The Evans resolution, which specifically referenced the Boulder attack involving an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa, perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. While the attack itself was horrific - leaving fifteen people injured - the decision to link it to sanctuary city policies sparked predictable resistance.

Rep. Dan Goldman's frustrated outburst during the floor debate - "We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns" - cuts to the heart of the matter. It's a sentiment I've heard expressed increasingly often by Jewish lawmakers from both parties.

The contrasting fate of these two resolutions - one passing unanimously, the other generating significant opposition - reveals something crucial about contemporary American politics. Even when dealing with issues that should unite us, the addition of controversial policy riders can shatter any hope of consensus.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew's measured response, acknowledging the validity of both approaches while defending his more focused resolution, offers perhaps the most constructive path forward. But in today's political climate, such balanced perspectives rarely gain the traction they deserve.

As we move forward, the challenge for Congress isn't just condemning antisemitism - it's finding ways to address complex, interconnected issues without allowing partisan divisions to undermine necessary action. Based on what I've observed, we're still far from achieving that delicate balance.

The House of Representatives' recent handling of antisemitism resolutions has exposed deeper fissures in American politics than many anticipated. As someone who's covered Congress for over two decades, I've rarely seen such a stark illustration of how partisan dynamics can complicate even seemingly straightforward moral statements.Last week's dual votes tell a fascinating story. While lawmakers unanimously supported a straightforward condemnation of antisemitism (passing 400-0), they fractured dramatically over a related measure that ventured into immigration territory. The more controversial resolution, championed by Colorado Republican Gabe Evans, passed 280-113 but left a trail of bitter exchanges in its wake.What's particularly striking about this situation - and I've watched plenty of congressional drama unfold - is how quickly the debate shifted from addressing antisemitism to trading personal barbs. When House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries dismissed Evans as "a joke" and questioned "Who is this guy?", he inadvertently transformed a policy debate into a personal confrontation.Evans, drawing from his background as a former police officer and military veteran, didn't take the slight lying down. His response on social media highlighted his service record and suggested Jeffries' attitude exemplified why antisemitism persists - a loaded claim that further intensified the already heated atmosphere.I've noticed a troubling pattern in recent years where legitimate concerns about antisemitism become entangled with other hot-button issues. The Evans resolution, which specifically referenced the Boulder attack involving an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa, perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. While the attack itself was horrific - leaving fifteen people injured - the decision to link it to sanctuary city policies sparked predictable resistance.Rep. Dan Goldman's frustrated outburst during the floor debate - "We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns" - cuts to the heart of the matter. It's a sentiment I've heard expressed increasingly often by Jewish lawmakers from both parties.The contrasting fate of these two resolutions - one passing unanimously, the other generating significant opposition - reveals something crucial about contemporary American politics. Even when dealing with issues that should unite us, the addition of controversial policy riders can shatter any hope of consensus.Rep. Jeff Van Drew's measured response, acknowledging the validity of both approaches while defending his more focused resolution, offers perhaps the most constructive path forward. But in today's political climate, such balanced perspectives rarely gain the traction they deserve.As we move forward, the challenge for Congress isn't just condemning antisemitism - it's finding ways to address complex, interconnected issues without allowing partisan divisions to undermine necessary action. Based on what I've observed, we're still far from achieving that delicate balance.