Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, professes himself to have been “very pleased” with what President Joe Biden said in his inauguration address about Republicans and Democrats needing to work together to solve problems. 

A week later, he’s waiting for those words to be put into action.

“I haven’t seen it, particularly with regard to the COVID-19 bill,” says Senator Portman, a member of a bipartisan group of senators who spearheaded a $900 billion relief package last month that passed 92-6. “It’s good to talk about bipartisanship. It’s much better to actually do it.” 

On Jan. 14, the incoming Biden administration announced a $1.9 trillion pandemic aid package that would fund an accelerated vaccine rollout, put schools on a path to reopening, provide relief to small businesses and unemployed Americans, offer $25 billion in rental assistance, and send out $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans.

Even moderate Republicans have balked at the price tag, pressing the administration on why the package includes stimulus payments to families making as much as $300,000, and calling for more targeted aid. With the national debt rapidly growing, they have also raised concerns about numerous other initiatives included in the package, such as spending more than $10 billion on cybersecurity after Russian hackers breached numerous U.S. government agencies last year, and raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour – a key policy goal of the progressive left.

Democrats, who hold a narrow majority in the House and a single tie-breaking vote in the Senate, are urging the bill’s immediate passage as an overdue remedy for millions of people affected by COVID-19 and the economic crisis. They say they cannot afford to let urgently needed relief be held hostage by political stall tactics. 

“If you see somebody is just stalling and objecting for purposes of stalling and objecting, you say, ‘We are not going to make the urgent needs of the American people … secondary to some politician looking for a stall strategy,’” says Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. “I think President Biden is striking a good balance … between making it clear what his first choice is, which is to be bipartisan, but he also – because he’s been in the Senate and been vice president – understands when people are really stalling for stalling’s sake.”

The pandemic legislation is the first major test of how President Biden and his Democratic allies in Congress will put into practice his exhortations to unity, and how willing Republicans will be to work with them. Already, hopes for bipartisanship are waning.

At a time of deepening polarization, centrifugal forces are pulling lawmakers on both sides toward more extreme positions, and threatening to destroy some of the mechanisms that have long served to temper the will of the majority. As pressure grows to address the economic fallout of the pandemic, many Democrats feel they don’t have time to wait – or waste – trying to get Republicans on board for a deal that may never happen. Some are even pushing to get rid of the filibuster, which allows for extended debate in the Senate, in order to pass bills more quickly. 

The filibuster stays – for now

The filibuster was first allowed in 1806, but has evolved over time. It was popularized in the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which an earnest young senator bent on blocking a corrupt appropriations bill speaks for 24 hours. In order to end such delays and move to a vote, 60 senators must agree to do so, in what’s known as a cloture vote. Defenders see the filibuster and cloture process as preventing a slim majority from ramrodding legislation through the Senate. Opponents argue it has led to undue obstructionism by the minority party.  

“The filibuster helps to protect the rights of the minority party and defines the Senate as the world’s greatest deliberative body,” says Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who in 2017 co-authored a bipartisan letter with Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware and signed by 61 senators, urging then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer not to abandon the legislative filibuster. “It would be tragic if it were removed. And I believe that the Democrats would rue the day, eventually, should they pursue that route.”

For now, the filibuster looks likely to survive, thanks to two Democratic senators who have publicly pledged to keep it – Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. 

Senator Manchin says it’s a defining characteristic of the Senate, which was designed to temper the more tempestuous passions of the House. 

“Get rid of the Senate then, if you don’t want [the filibuster],” he says. “Just make it unicameral and we’ll have one body.” 

Senator Manchin spearheaded a 75-minute call between Biden officials and a bipartisan group of 16 lawmakers on Sunday, including Senators Portman and Collins. 

Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican who was also reportedly part of the bipartisan group and called the Biden bill’s price tag “pretty shocking,” says Mr. Biden’s call for unity can be met in tone even if not always in substance.

Unity suggests “people that respect one another, that are willing to work with each other, that are open to different points of view,” he says. “I’m not surprised that a Democrat pursues Democrat issues, [and] Republicans like myself will fight for Republican issues – but we can do so with comity and grace and respect.”

Impeachment and fallout from the riot

The tumultuous weeks leading up to President Biden’s inauguration cast an early shadow over his calls for unity. Although Mr. Biden has stayed largely out of it, the Democratic push to impeach and convict former President Donald Trump, whom they blame for inciting an insurrection on the Capitol on Jan. 6, has dimmed hopes for bipartisan cooperation. In a procedural vote on Tuesday, the vast majority of Senate Republicans indicated they see an impeachment trial of a former president as unconstitutional.   

Mr. Biden is also under pressure from the ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party. In the early stages of the presidential primaries and caucuses, Mr. Biden lagged well behind more left-leaning candidates. And although Democrats eventually coalesced around him in the effort to defeat Mr. Trump, he faces considerable pressure from the left wing of his party on a range of issues, from racial justice to climate change.

Above all, there is a growing frustration in Congress that efforts at bipartisan compromise have become less and less fruitful. After years of gridlock, some Democrats believe eliminating the filibuster might be the only way to achieve a functional legislative branch again – one that can tackle big problems and deliver results. 

There are ways around the filibuster without flat-out nixing it. Budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority, would allow the Senate’s 50 Democrats plus Vice President Kamala Harris to push some legislation through without a single Republican vote. 

Given the urgency of pandemic relief, Democratic senators say they may have no choice but to use reconciliation to pass President Biden’s $1.9 trillion bill if they can’t get enough Republican colleagues to support it. 

When Republicans were in the majority, points out Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, the GOP leadership also used reconciliation to achieve legislative priorities. That’s how Republicans passed the 2017 tax cuts, for example. 

But if Mr. Biden’s opening salvo is achieved through budget reconciliation, after all his talk of unity and bipartisanship, that could early on sour his relationship with even moderate Republicans – especially coming on top of the Democrats’ push for impeachment, as well as Mr. Biden’s executive orders on everything from canceling the Keystone XL pipeline to including unauthorized immigrants in the census, which is used for apportioning representatives to Congress.

“Actions speak louder than words. You take a look at the executive orders he signed, there’s nothing particularly unifying about most of those,” says Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, who has also called on Democrats to call off the Senate impeachment trial of former President Trump. “They can’t win graciously. They were sore losers in 2016, and they were sore losers for four years. Now they’re sore winners.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin leaves the chamber after senators took an oath and voted on how to proceed on the impeachment against former President Donald Trump, at the Capitol in Washington, on Jan. 26, 2021. Senator Johnson sided with most Republicans in calling the impeachment proceedings unconstitutional for a president who has left office – a sign of the sharp partisan divides in Congress.

“A reflection of America”

After Tuesday’s procedural vote revealed that only five Republicans at most would potentially be willing to convict Mr. Trump in an impeachment trial, Senator Kaine raised the idea of a censure vote instead, which could get more bipartisan support. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has insisted the trial will go forward.

Despite many in and out of Congress despairing about the decline in cooperation between the parties, Senator Kaine says it’s worth pursuing compromise where possible. He points out that he has seen it work under both Democratic and Republican leadership on committees like Health and Armed Services, both of which he has been a part of since 2013. 

“I continue to think we should make the effort as much as we can, because the greater the buy-in on the Hill, traditionally, the greater the buy-in in the populace,” says Senator Kaine, who represents Virginia, where voters don’t register by party. “If it’s a narrowly divided bill on the Hill, then it tends to be narrowly divided out in the real world, too.”

In separate interviews, both he and GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota make the point that bipartisan cooperation still happens – it just doesn’t get as much attention as gridlock.

“One of the problems I think we have in America is that the unifying things that we do aren’t very sexy,” says Senator Cramer. “So unfortunately all America gets to see is divisiveness.”

“But I also have to say, some of the divisiveness that you see in Congress is a reflection of America,” he adds. “In fact, I would say there’s more unity within the United States Senate than there is out there in Realville.”

Even Senator Portman, who surprised many this week by announcing he would not seek reelection due in part to frustration over partisan gridlock, says he still thinks the kind of bipartisan cooperation he saw in December on pandemic relief is possible in the new Congress. 

“In theory, it should work better with government even more closely balanced,” he says, “and a new president who claims he is – and I think he is – sincerely interested in trying to cut through the partisan gridlock.”

So why is he leaving if bipartisanship is possible?

“It’s possible, but do you see it happening? I mean, that’s the whole point,” he says. He walks toward a waiting elevator before turning back and adding, “I’m not leaving. I’m here for two more years. ... I’m going to try hard to make that happen.”

Brendan Smialowski/Reuters

Wendy Sherman, then undersecretary of state for political affairs, who led the State Department team negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, arrives at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, April 3, 2015.

When President Joe Biden settled on Wendy Sherman as his choice for deputy secretary of state, it was one more indication that the new administration plans to move Iran diplomacy to a front burner.

To be sure, the appointment of Ms. Sherman to fill the State Department’s No. 2 slot also reflects the new president’s efforts to put more women in higher positions in his administration. If confirmed by the Senate, Ms. Sherman would be the first female deputy secretary of state.

But as Mr. Biden continues to fill out his foreign policy team, it’s worth remembering the path Ms. Sherman took that brought her to her most recent nomination.

A former North Korea policy coordinator and nuclear negotiator under President Bill Clinton, she served as undersecretary of state for political affairs – effectively the State Department’s fourth-highest position – under Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

And in that role she led the State Department’s negotiating team for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA – at times the lone woman at a table of men haggling over the seven-nation agreement.

As the State Department’s second-ranking diplomat, Ms. Sherman would have more on her plate than just Iran. At the same time, her appointment suggests to many that Mr. Biden expects the Iran file to be a critical and continuing feature of his administration’s national security priorities and diplomatic focus.

Also, that he wants an experienced team to hit the ground running on Iran. (Add to Ms. Sherman’s appointment word that Mr. Biden intends to name as his Iran envoy Rob Malley, who was the Obama national security staff’s member of the JCPOA negotiating team.) Indeed, the Middle East press has recently carried stories claiming that “informal contacts” between the Biden team and the Iranians have already occurred.

Compliance for compliance

Mr. Biden has said he aims for a quick U.S. return to the Iran deal, which limited its nuclear program and pulled it back from the brink of the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, once Iran agrees to return to compliance.

For its part, the United States would presumably have to undo some of the sanctions the Trump administration imposed on Iran after leaving the deal in 2018.

Once such a compliance-for-compliance deal was reached and Iran’s nuclear program was “back in the box,” as Biden national security officials like to say, the administration would turn to negotiating a second agreement “lengthening and strengthening” the 2015 accord.

The aim of that follow-on diplomacy would include addressing Iran’s growing arsenal of ballistic missiles and its destabilizing activities across the region, as well as steps to make key pieces of the JCPOA permanent.

But no one foresees diplomacy with Iran going quickly or easily. In his Senate testimony last week, since-confirmed Secretary of State Antony Blinken said any follow-on deal with Iran addressing other concerns about its behavior in the region is a “long way” off.

And at his first briefing with State Department press Wednesday, Mr. Blinken said of negotiating any “longer and stronger” deal with Iran that, “We’re not there yet, to say the least.”

Indeed, Iran diplomacy is likely to stretch across Mr. Biden’s four-year term, many experts say, with crises and stalemates along the way. And that may help explain why Mr. Biden turned to so many experienced Iran hands – including Ms. Sherman – to fill out his diplomatic team.

“It’s not 2015 anymore”

Some experts worry that Mr. Biden’s turn to experience means the “new team” will simply return to what the Obama administration did. Perhaps mindful of that, Mr. Blinken pledged in his briefing to avoid “groupthink” on Iran and other issues.

Others, including some longtime critics of the JCPOA, say they see reassuring signs that the reassembled national security team is not out to simply reconstruct the past when it comes to Iran.

“If Biden and his team are to be taken at face value, they do seem to realize that it’s not 2015 anymore … [and] they all now readily offer up that it would be very bad for U.S. interests if the [JCPOA] was simply implemented as is,” says John Hannah, who served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and is now senior counselor at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.

Brendan Smialowski/AP/File

From left: Robert Malley of the U.S. National Security Council; Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz; Secretary of State John Kerry; Undersecretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi; head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi; and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wait for a meeting to discuss Iran's nuclear program in Lausanne, Switzerland, March 27, 2015.

“While they still believe [the JCPOA] continues to have short-term utility as a means of averting an immediate crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, their advocacy for significant changes to the deal and for expanding negotiations to include non-nuclear subjects is an important shift from five years ago,” he says.

“If that’s … the strategy they intend to pursue,” Mr. Hannah adds, “I don’t really see a problem with the fact that they were all JCPOA supporters in the past.”

Others concur that what they’re hearing out of Mr. Biden’s new-old Iran team is not simply back to the future.

“I am seeing a ‘hardening,’ if you will, on the part of the Biden team,” says Nicholas Heras, director of government relations and a Middle East expert at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington.

Focus of follow-on deal

He notes, for example, that Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, and other Biden confidants were “non-committal” during the 2020 campaign concerning Iran’s ballistic missiles.

But now addressing the missiles is regularly cited as “an objective for a follow-on deal,” he adds – including recently by Secretary Blinken.

Mr. Heras says the Biden team has set the bar very high for a follow-on deal, noting that Iran considers its missiles “its best source of strategic pressure” against Israel and unfriendly Gulf Arab states.

“This is Sullivan’s gamble, because now that he’s made Iran’s ballistic missiles a hill that needs to be taken in negotiations,” he says, “his team will be judged on whether they actually take that objective.”

But first comes the matter of getting the JCPOA back on track. And Mr. Biden’s hopes for a quick “compliance-for-compliance” return to the nuclear deal notwithstanding, regional experts say any number of complicating factors could nip the sprouting U.S.-Iran diplomacy in the bud.

One is the Iranian parliament’s recent vote, in the wake of the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist in November, requiring the government to ramp up nuclear activities, including enriching uranium to a higher grade closer to that needed to deliver the fissile material required for a bomb. The law also calls for reducing access to United Nations atomic energy inspectors if sanctions relief is not secured by Feb. 21.

On the U.S. side, dubious members of Congress are worried Mr. Biden will gut former President Donald Trump’s sanctions and other elements of his “maximum pressure campaign” just to get back into the JCPOA – and have no leverage left for getting follow-on concessions from Iran.

Political calculus in Iran

But perhaps the key factor leaving the U.S. with a narrow window for diplomacy is Iran’s political calendar, with a presidential election set for June.

Some Iran experts believe a successful return to negotiations with the U.S. could provide a boon for a more moderate candidate to emerge victorious, while continued stalemate with the U.S. would likely favor a hard-liner.

But others caution against acting out of hopes of influencing the election outcome.

“I just don’t think the U.S. should or can ‘game’ Iran’s political system,” says Mr. Hannah. The U.S. needs to figure out its essential interests with respect to Iran and what objectives it can realistically achieve with the resources it’s prepared to apply, he says, “and then pursue them systematically irrespective of who Iran’s unelected leaders have allowed to rise to the presidency.”

Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Javad Zarif – who has worked closely with the members of Mr. Biden’s foreign-policy team, including Ms. Sherman – insist that the ball is now in the U.S. court. The U.S. pulled out of the deal, they say, and it’s now up to the U.S. to make the first moves, starting with lifting sanctions, to get the deal back on track.

But some regional experts say such tough talk belies a strong desire, especially among Iranian moderates, to get back to diplomacy with the U.S. after the diplomatic standoff and heightened tensions of the Trump presidency.

“There’s no other team the Iranians are going to engage with,” Mr. Heras says, “that is going to be as willing to walk down the path of diplomacy.”

There’s a deep quality to the stillness in Mbodiène. In the middle of this small coastal town stand two mighty kapok trees, their spreading branches casting shade over the square. Dusty pathways lead off the square to single-story cement homes – there are no tarred roads here.

On a recent afternoon, a bell rings and a kindergarten spews out a dozen or so kids into the square. Across the field, their excited chatter is barely audible, the trees seeming to absorb all sounds.

Home to mostly fishers and farmers, known only for bird-watching, Mbodiène has always been quiet. But a massive project spearheaded by Senegalese American singer Akon could soon change that. Humble Mbodiène has been picked as the site of Akon City, a futuristic “smart city” projected to cost billions and take a decade to complete.

In architects’ sketches, the unbuilt Senegalese city is a labyrinth of warped metal and glass, with miles of palm-lined roads – a scene from science fiction. Undulating rose-gold towers reach up toward the sky, their vast windows and curves reflecting the sea in front of them. And onto that backdrop, observers near and far have projected all sorts of visions, long before a single building goes up. 

The singer has called his city a refuge for the African diaspora, and “the beginning of Africa’s future”. He says it will boost Senegal’s economy and attract other foreign investments, including in tourism. Journalists have compared it to Wakanda in the blockbuster “Black Panther.” Others deride the project as an unrealistic stunt.

Pedro Nunes/Reuters/File

Akon, an R&B artist and chairman and co-founder of Akoin, speaks at the Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, Nov. 6, 2019. The artist has announced plans for a futuristic Akon City to be built in Mbodiène, Senegal.

But how about Akon’s neighbors in Mbodiène? How will they benefit from the experiment next door?

“Never have we had a project this big, that not only Senegal is talking about but Africa and the world,” says 30-year-old Joachim Jean-Marc Diouf, a leader of Mbodiène’s youth association.

Like many young people in Mbodiène, Mr. Diouf was born here but had to leave for secondary and college training. The closest universities and hospitals are in Mbour or the capital Dakar, both at least an hour away. It is one reason why many here eagerly await Akon City, which would have a school and a hospital offering free care to locals.

Akon’s ambition

Aliaune Damala Badara Akon Thiam was born in the U.S., but spent much of his childhood in Senegal before moving to New Jersey at age 11. In recent years, the R&B artist has added philanthropy to his portfolio, including a youth empowerment organization in Senegal, and a solar-energy nonprofit that operates across the continent.

He first announced Akon City in 2018, in a shock to Mbodiène’s 6,000-strong population. It will be the first of many smart cities in Africa, Akon has said, built in part for the Black diaspora.

“The system back home treats them unfairly in so many different ways that you can never imagine. And they only go through it because they feel that there is no other way,” Akon told reporters last year. “So if you’re coming from America or Europe or elsewhere in the diaspora and you feel that you want to visit Africa, we want Senegal to be your first stop.”

Like Wakanda, Akon City aims to be technologically advanced, incorporating cutting-edge innovation into luxury resorts, high-rise apartments, recording studios, a stadium, and a helipad. It will be stretched over 2,000 acres of coastal land acquired from the Senegalese government, run on a cryptocurrency named Akoin, and generate its electricity through Akon’s Lighting Africa project. Two-thirds of the budgeted $6 billion has been secured, according to builder KE International, but the only named investor is Julius Mwale – a tech entrepreneur who also invested in another “smart city” in Kenya.

Last September, Akon laid the first brick in a kickoff ceremony that saw journalists flood Mbodiène. Construction, he said, would begin in 2021. For now, though, the land that will be transformed is still a plain cornfield.

Courtesy of KE International

A rendering of Akon City, a “smart city” planned to be built near Mbodiène, Senegal.

Hopes for work

A few days before the public briefing, Akon visited the people of Mbodiène to seek their blessings. Donning a blue kaftan, the star told young and old alike that Akon City would not succeed without their cooperation.

He won many hearts with the move: Choosing to meet residents before the official ceremony signaled respect and a willingness to tread with caution, both valued traits in West African culture.

Mr. Diouf, sporting a striped polo, admits it’s a bit disconcerting to suddenly be the center of attention. But for now, the excitement many feel outweighs that.

“Just like in many small villages in Senegal, we have many youths who don’t have jobs, and when the construction starts in 2021, we are expecting Akon to offer some important jobs to the youth of Mbodiène,” he says.

Paul Martin, director of the Akon City Project at KE International, writes in an email that they will “employ thousands of locals throughout the project lifecycle. Many of the jobs will be permanent.”

Louise Sarr, a retired educator, is passionate about including Mbodiène’s women in the opportunities ahead. No-nonsense but motherly, Ms. Sarr is revered here, and consults for a women’s association offering small loans for businesses.

“We know Akon may not be able to do everything that he has promised, but at least we want him to finance some of the projects that are the most important to us,” she says. About 500 women in Mbodiène need jobs, she says, and her informal group has presented plans for Akon to consider, such as fish-processing plants.

He’s promised to help, she says, and she hopes that he will keep his word. “We saw that he has been very active with the young men, why not the women too?”

“We are staying calm”

Heavy criticism trails Akon City. Many have mocked it as delusional, and others question how it can symbolize “Africa’s future,” when it has been designed by an Abu Dhabi-based architect and is due to be built by a U.S.-based developer.

Some say Akon’s vision will benefit only the wealthy and tourists. Already, some locals have lost farmland: The land the city would be built on was acquired by the government in the 90’s for tourism, residents say, after increased salinity levels made it difficult to grow anything. Some are still awaiting payment. Senegal’s tourism agency has not responded to questions about Akon City’s agreements to protect locals.

“The skepticism around Akon’s project is related to the fact that people are used to seeing big politicians promise but not deliver,” says Az Momar Lo, a Dakar-based fact-checker and journalist with Africa Check, whose requests to see the fine print of agreements between the government and Akon’s team went unanswered.

Then there’s the mystery of the location, although many point out that Mbodiène is close to a recently built international airport. “Mbodiène itself [is] a village off the beaten path. When you take a small village and say you want to build a futuristic city, there is room for doubt,” Mr. Lo says. “If it were a known city like Dakar, maybe no one would be concerned. But Mbodiène, why there?”

In Mbodiène, though, most are choosing optimism.

“People have been saying maybe this project will not directly benefit the dwellers of Mbodiène and maybe it will only benefit Akon and the capitalists. But as for us, we are staying calm,” Mr. Diouf says. “With such a huge project like a futuristic city, it is only fitting that a futuristic village is beside it.”

AP

A man ferries customers across the Suchiate River between Guatemala and Mexico, Jan. 20.

When he was vice president seven years ago, Joe Biden scanned the globe for the most compelling problems to tackle. “Of all the places in crisis in the world, I came to believe that Central America had the best chance,” he later wrote.

He saw the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador – the main source of unauthorized migrants into the United States – as a critical link in his broader vision, namely that the entire Western Hemisphere could be “middle class, secure, and democratic.” He was able to convince Congress to provide nearly $800 million to lift up the so-called Northern Triangle nations.

On Jan. 21, a day after becoming president, Mr. Biden again focused on Central America. This time, he raised his expectations for the three southern neighbors. He asked U.S. lawmakers to commit $4 billion over four years to reform the region’s governance and economies.

Unlike his other presidential initiatives on immigration, this one received the best bipartisan response. Tackling the root causes of Central Americans traveling to the U.S. border – economic hardship, persecution, and violence – has all the appeal of a wise investment. It could also be a starting point for Congress to discuss a comprehensive solution to the difficult issues of immigration.

Mr. Biden plans to focus on two reforms for Central America: improving rule of law to combat corruption and enhancing economic opportunity for the creation of jobs. Both require a better education system. Two-thirds of students in the three countries do not finish high school, one reason so many young people join gangs. To relieve the pressure on Central Americans to migrate, income levels would need to rise to at least $8,000 in terms of gross national product per capita. Currently, they are around $4,000 or less.

Solving the immigration puzzle for the U.S. can begin in its own backyard. The problems in Central America run deep. And foreign aid may be required for years. But the illegal border crossings – especially those by unaccompanied minors – can end if the U.S. reaches far across its border to assist the neediest in its hemispheric neighborhood.