A bitter House split extended to Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation last week, as moderate Democrats joined Republican colleagues in approving millions in no-strings-attached funding for border agencies.

House Democrats had fought for reforms to the sprawling network of camps — scattered across the country but concentrated at the border — where migrants and asylum-seekers are housed as they await hearings or deportation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had called herself a “lioness” on behalf of migrant children separated from their parents and held in the camps.

But on Wednesday, Pelosi’s party caved amid internal splits, while Republican colleagues like Rep. John Joyce, R-13th District, celebrated.

The latest fight concerned a $4.6 billion funding package meant to pay for border agencies and camp operations. Democratic leaders insisted the money for organizations like Immigration and Customs Enforcement come with strings attached, allowing stronger oversight of the camps and border forces.

But centrist Democrats joined GOP colleagues, allowing a less restrictive Republican bill to fund the agencies with no hard rules. Pelosi said Vice President Mike Pence instead offered a non-binding deal to inform congressional leaders when children die at the camps.

“For the first time since I took office, the House today exercised some common sense regarding the situation at the southern border,” Joyce said in a news release before the congressional Independence Day break. It is clear that the will of the American people is starting to break through and inspire action from the same Democrats who once claimed that the crisis was manufactured.

Republicans remained unified on the funding bill, which passed the House in a 305-102 vote. Democrats split partly along ideological lines, with progressive members and many in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus opposed to the bill.

The split was visible in Pennsylvania, where House Republicans were united and Democrats took both sides. Six state Democrats voted for the bill and three opposed it.

A few days earlier, when the bill passed the Senate, it did so easily with support from both Pennsylvania’s senators. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., stressed that the bill funds resources for camp detainees while strengthening border agencies.

The bill allows tens of millions of dollars for ICE, millions in aid for migrants in the camps and millions more for military operations at the Mexican border. Republicans took their legislative victory as an ideological one: In his written statement, Joyce said “the American people” want a border wall and an end to what his GOP allies increasingly call “open borders.”

State ICE help highlighted

While the fight over border detention tears intraparty rifts in Washington, state-level cooperation with immigration authorities is drawing close attention from activist groups.

A set of lawsuits and a new study are highlighting the patchwork of immigration policies among Pennsylvania’s police agencies, where some departments — and even individual officers — cooperate at different levels.

Last week, the state American Civil Liberties Union branch filed a series of lawsuits against the state police for allegedly detaining drivers and investigating their citizenship status on the basis of their ethnicity.

State troopers, the 10 plaintiffs and their ACLU representatives said, have stopped drivers and immediately questioned their immigration status, sometimes before they ask for identification.

“The Pennsylvania state police have neither the training, expertise, nor lawful authority to play immigration cops,” state ACLU legal director Witold Walczak told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The state police reformed their own policies on the issue a few months ago, with a new directive limiting non-binding cooperation with ICE. Troopers no longer cooperate with so-called ICE civil detainers requested against suspected undocumented immigrants, but they still cooperate with legally binding orders to hold suspects.

The policy change, first made public earlier this year, angered some Republican lawmakers in Harrisburg.

The ACLU lawsuits come as a new university study reveals the extent of legal cooperation with ICE across Pennsylvania counties. According to new data from the Temple University Sheller Center for Social Justice, at least 19 county governments work directly with ICE — whether by allowing jail space for detention, contacting immigration officials or providing regular pickup times for those suspected of violations.

Among them, according to the Sheller Center list, is Cambria County. The county jail is already known to house ICE detainees, and at least some police there operate under a federal rule that allows direct local enforcement and detention for ICE.

The study sheds light on the wide difference in enforcement levels between cities like Philadelphia — commonly labeled a “sanctuary city” for its limited federal cooperation — and those that actively seek to expel undocumented immigrants.

Health fights heat up Democrats’ debate

For those who could bring themselves to watch two consecutive nights of packed debates, health care policy clearly emerged as one of the most divisive issues in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Differences over how best to expand health coverage — whether by a national health insurance system, a public insurance option or a range of other fixes — have split the Democrats who hope to unseat President Donald Trump in 2020.

In Pennsylvania, the answer seems clear — at least, depending on how you word the question.

A poll last fall by Politico and the AARP found that a majority of Pennsylvanians, 52 percent, back “Medicare for All,” in which every American would get guaranteed insurance from the federal government. A plurality of older Pennsylvanians supported the policy.

Other polls have asked more pointed questions about higher taxes and delayed doctor visits, both common warnings by Republicans who oppose universal insurance. Some find reduced public support in those cases, although studies have shown a net savings even when taxes are factored in.

At the second Democratic debate on Thursday, only two Democratic hopefuls — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said they supported totally eliminating private health insurance in favor of a Medicare for All system. Harris later reversed the answer, and the other candidates onstage said they support preserving private insurance in some cases.

The debate, however, highlights the sharp turn Democratic toward a public option and universal coverage since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Several members of Penn­syl­vania’s Democratic congressional delegation have cosponsored bills pushing toward Medicare for All — even as President Donald Trump predicts the Democratic hopefuls’ stance will be “the end of the race.”

Ryan Brown can be reached at rbrown@altoonamirror.com.