President Biden plans to sign an executive order that would effectively close the border to asylum seekers. Atrios isn't impressed:
This will solve an undefinable problem and satisfy all the people who have good faith concerns!
I don't get this. Even if you oppose Biden's plan, it's pretty obvious what problem he's trying to solve:
We're down from the huge peak of last December, but there are still nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants—many of them trying to claim asylum—crossing the border every month. That's a lot.
The real problem with Biden's plan is that it's likely illegal and a court will strike it down in short order. Also, according to the Washington Post, migrants who "state a fear of persecution" will remain eligible for protection. But don't they all do that?
We're down from the huge peak of last December, but there are still nearly 200,000 illegal immigrants—many of them trying to claim asylum—crossing the border every month. That's a lot.
"Crossings" implies some of them are apprehended and sent back (ie, those who don't claim asylum and/or don't have ID, which I understand to be a requirement to request asylum). And the numbers move up and down month to month. Still, it would appear that the United States is getting an extra couple of million immigrants annually, in addition to those million or so who get green cards.
That implies a net rate of immigration approaching 1% annually for the US, which is a bit higher than our long term average of .7% (going back to 1820), and considerably less than our Ellis Island era peak, which topped out at around 1.5%.
I realize this is a political problem for Biden, but, given our slumping, rich-world typical birth rate, I'd argue a net rate in the 1% range is desirable, at least if we can build enough housing and infrastructure. These are basically people who have come here to help us pay our bills, and aid us in our serious geopolitical rivalry with China.
"""
The net migration rate for U.S. in 2023 was 2.748 per 1000 population, a 1.29% decline from 2022. The net migration rate for U.S. in 2022 was 2.784 per 1000 population, a 1.28% decline from 2021. The net migration rate for U.S. in 2021 was 2.820 per 1000 population, a 1.3% decline from 2020.
"""
Yes, well, under 0.3% is almost the same as 1%. What's a factor of three among friends.
The numbers you cite don't take into consideration migration or unauthorized immigratioin, but only green card issuance. But a person moving to the United States permanently is an immigrant as that term is understood in the English language, regardless of the paperwork they possess.
If we consider the 2 million odd migrants annually settling in the country at present plus the million or so people who acquire green cards each year, we get 3 million—a number equal to a bit less than one percent of the US population. IOW a rate of immigration of approximately 1.0% (the long term average is 0.7%—I've run the numbers).
I use the term "net" (rate of immigration) because emigration out of the US is typically a rounding error, though given the growing number of Americans retiring abroad, it probably bears investigation.
Trolls come in many forms. This barcode motherfucker is a troll. Don’t feed it. It’s isn’t arguing in good faith - it’s just flinging poo everywhere.
Your last sentence there is so incredibly important, but too complex for a lot of people it seems. The net value of these immigrants, especially when they are welcomed enough for their children to integrate, is huge. We have the space and resources for them, and, if we let them, they will keep a liberal democracy (as long as we vote) as the top global influence for the rest of this century.
"... they will keep a liberal democracy .."
High levels of immigration make it less likely the US will stay a liberal democracy.
"High levels of immigration make it less likely the US will stay a liberal democracy."
I think this is true. The higher the level of immigration, the more likely it is that illiberal forces opposed to immigration will (a) prevail and (b) react with draconian measures that will erode our democracy.
The first question is whether we should punish those who wish to come to the United States to appease the forcces of authoritarianism. The answer to that question may vary depending on whether pragmatism trumps principle.
But a critical second question is whether the forces of authoritarianism can ever be appeased. And I would suggest the answer to that is a resounding no. If we reduce immigration to zero, the next step is likely the expulsion of those deemed "insufficiently American" (ie not white enough).
While the economic arguments for immigration seem plausible, I think the problem is the authoritarian impulses of the immigrants themselves. Why would anyone assume they share left of center American values when it is clear many of them do not.
Here is one example:
"Not long ago, many white conservatives in the U.S. saw Muslims solely through the lens of terrorism, vilifying and scapegoating them in the wake of 9/11. Now conservative Muslims and white, Christian evangelicals have found common ground in their opposition to shifting gender roles, LGBTQ rights, and secularism. The erstwhile foes, bound by a shared commitment to conservative values, are now pledging to work together to combat sex and gender education in public schools. But the nascent alliance is propelled by crackpot ideas that public schools are “grooming” and indoctrinating impressionable children. The baseless, misguided belief that children are being “turned” gay or trans is pervasive and fueling extremist ideologies in metro Detroit."
https://michiganadvance.com/2023/10/03/how-some-michigan-muslims-united-with-extremist-republicans-against-lgbtq-rights/
What happens when the immigrants team up with those illiberal forces you fear? Maybe you fear the wrong thing. Hope I'm wrong.
I hope you're wrong as well. And I think you are.
All we need to do to get from where we are to where we need to be is to acknowledge that America's foundational principle is that all people are created equal, Christianity's foundational principle is that all people are created equal, Islam's foundational principle is that all people are created equal, etc.
The foundational principle behind the authoritarian impulse is the idea that anyone who is supporting the authoritarian impulse is important and the people resisting that impulse are not important.
Do we?
Do we indeed have enough water in the West/Southwest for example for even the current level of population? What do the climate-change projections show for annual rain/snowfall totals for that region and the country as a whole by 2050? (I don't know, have to get to work so don't have time to go look. It is though something which must be considered when deciding we have sufficient resources). The aquifer(s) in the Great Plains are being drawn-down (eg Ogallala). That doesn't suggest sustainably sufficient water there.
The per-capita emissions of the United States are the highest of any country (barring some tiny counter-examples). Anyone coming here from virtually any other country on the planet is going to have an emissions increase.
We absolutely do have the space. We could have a billion people and be half as dense as France.
The trick is to incentivize people to go to the Midwest and the inland south instead of the coasts.
Eventually the lack of water will be incentive enough to move to the upper Midwest, which has plenty of water for a billion people.
Half the population density of France is much too high a population density.
Is is not a matter of people per square kilometer. It is a matter of emissions per-capita, water, energy, etc etc etc..
I went to the census site and read their estimates of different levels of immigration. The report said if all legal and undocumented immigration was ended now, the US population would drop by 100 million by 2100. Interesting.
The immigration rate should be controlled to get zero, or a bit less, population growth.
Net population increase of 1% for how long? Indefinitely? Until we reach population parity with China? Certainly the former is right out. And the latter doesn't seem particularly appealing.
A material challenge for Biden, within the Democratic coalition, it is difficult to find a single position/set of policies with broad support. On a relative basis, the Republican coalition is much more unified, around their immigration desires.
Further complicating this situation, are global treaties and US laws. Of course, politically the GOP loves to complain, rather than solve immigration challenges. Thus, for Biden, I don't see a simple position or fix on immigration.
One example of the variation
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/liberal-and-moderate-democrats-differ-some-immigration-policies
Really? A lot of agricultural production, and meat and poultry processing, depends on immigrant labor; and rural areas are a key to the Republican vote. Meanwhile, Republicans stir up fears among working-class white men of job losses and the ’Great Replacement’, so to support strong restrictions on immigration.
No plan is going to work because there are too many conflicting interests.
The employer class likes cheap labor and it doesn't get any cheaper than illegal immigrants.
The working class is more nuanced. If a person's job is at risk from illegal immigrants then they'll be vehemently against them. On the other hand, a lot of those guys like cheap fast food and this is made possible in part because their favorite McD/PizzaHut/Wendys/Popeyes/etcetcetc employs illegals to clean at night. I also know personally many blue collar guys in California that hire illegals in California to do all their yard work once a week. Lotsa irony there.
Anyhoo. If you want Romaine in Minneapolis that doesn't cost $8/head then you're going to want illegals working the farms in the Salinas.
"No plan is going to work because there are too many conflicting interests."
Beware of self-fulfilling prophecies. If I act based on the assumption that I won't catch a fish, then I won't fish, and then I won't catch a fish.
"It is interesting that people living in egalitarian societies must work so aggressively to keep their political order in place." —Christopher Boehm (1931-2021)
“The employer class likes cheap labor and it doesn't get any cheaper than illegal immigrants.”
Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas say “hold my beer” as they work diligently to bring back indentured servitude and slavery. Both of those are even cheaper than illegal immigration: what’s cheaper than owning or renting long term your workforce, supplying them with dormitory housing/shacks and just enough food to not die.
> 200,000 illegal immigrants—many of them trying to claim asylum
How exactly are they illegal immigrants if they are trying to claim asylum?
Because asylum seekers are all illegal immigrants and only get legalized if their claims are accepted.
There's nothing inherently legal about those trying to claim asylum.
This comment perfectly illustrates Atrios' claim. Here we have someone insisting that someone following a drefned, legal process should be considered 'illegal' because he doesnt consider them to be 'inherently legal'. Lol, what a crock of sheet.
Illegal is often 'defined' as people that I dont approve of doing something I dont like. The word illegal doesnt really mean anything, it is only used to display displeasure or disapproval.
Biden cant address this and he cant regulate away the 'problem' of the existence of people that others disapprove of. Kevin assumes that there is a good faith argument that is being addressed and completely misses the point that Atrios was making.
Thankfully, this guy provided a good example of the real issue at hand.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Calling someone "illegal" because they are awaiting a legal protocol is like calling me a shoplifter because I took something off the shelf and am standing in the checkout line.
Good analogy.
Other way around: they're here legally while awaiting adjudication of their claim. If it's eventually rejected, and they fail to return home, then they'd become undocumented.
That is the larger problem here, though, and I say that as a progressive who's generally in favor of more legal immigration. The vast majority of these asylum claims will be rejected. The current wave of asylum-seekers aren't journalists or activists being persecuted by authoritarian regimes, but simply poor people who can't find work in their homelands or were run off by drug gangs or whatever. It's going to take years for these cases to work their way through the courts, by which time these people will have settled down, gotten jobs, started families, etc. Are we seriously going to deport them en-masse when the time comes? I know that's a MAGA wet dream, but in reality it's a lot messier and whoever's president or in Congress in 5-10 years is going to have to figure out how to deal with it.
Maybe we could allocate more money to the asylum process and hire more judges? Nah, that would be too obvious. Better to let them suffer and let the GOP use them as a stick to beat Biden with, right?
There is money in the Senate passed immigration bill for courts and judges. The Speaker is keeping it from being voted on because Donald told him to in order to have a good campaign issue. But everyone here knew that already.
Judges and courts are expensive. I don't know how high level said judges and courts are, but it seems that along with more of them, and doing them on video because not a lot of judges want to live in Douglas AZ, the process could be made more administrative - more rules, less judgment - to make it cheaper and easier.
Maybe all that has already been done. Maybe some of it is in the bill. Anyway, the real problem is the time of years between entering and the asylum claim being judged. It should happen in days or weeks, not years, and the problem is mostly solved. Meanwhile where I live (NYC) we're spending tons of money on them.
Why does Biden have such a difficult time reminding voters that the gop is reneging in an immigration deal they negotiated? He should hold up a piece of paper with that deal during the debate and push Trump to sign it.
This might be a gambit to get the ball back in Congress's court. Sign an executive order, get it blocked by the courts, and then it'll be up to Congress to change the laws if they want to see the policy implemented. Your move, reverend Johnson!
I don't get it either. He should be doing that every day.
To say that Biden’s border plan probably won’t work is to question his administration's competency, which is a legitimate thing to do, all else being equal. But all else is not equal.
A politician engages in political practice or commits political malpractice. The former serves the whole constituency at the short-term expense of its parts, and then the parts benefit in the long term from the strength of the whole. The latter serves the short-term interest of a part of the constituency at the expense of the whole, and then all its parts suffer in the long term from the weakness of the whole.
Because the Biden administration is engaging in political practice, competency is an asset. Because the MAGA Republican Party is committing political malpractice, competency is a liability. Evil geniuses are worse than evil idiots.
I know it's important to question every administration's competency, but at this moment in history, to me, it just feels wrong.
People who vote for Trump think the president, and, by extension, the Federal government, have magic powers that Democrats arbitrarily refuse to exercise.
They think if the president commands 'build me a ladder to the moon' the whole power of the US government can be devoted to that task, and if it should happen to fail, or fall down, or something, it's not their fault, it's not the president's fault, it's everyone else who has failed to work hard enough.
That is your problem right there. At least from one direction. If you oppose Biden's plan, likely you do not see any problem in that chart.
There is of course a real issue here, and it has been felt in the True Blue northeast, where we have asylum seekers in my little town about 1 hr north of NYC, with their children attending town schools. Biden's plan is likely to try to reel back in some democratic leaning moderate independents without pissing off the progressives too much. If and when the courts strike it down, he can then blame Congressional GOP members and their Orange cult leader for trashing the bipartisan immigration deal.
>Also, according to the Washington Post, migrants who "state a fear of persecution" will remain eligible for protection. But don't they all do that?
What the Post story says is this:
>Migrants who state a fear of persecution if returned to Mexico will remain eligible under the Convention Against Torture and other protections afforded by U.S. law,
The standard for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture is substantially higher than the standard for a grant of asylum. (Note that the Post screwed up in referring to "fear of persecution" re the Convention Against Torture. One must show fear of torture, not mere persecution, to get CAT relief). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-apply-convention-against-torture-protection.html
None of the 'plans' to discourage migration from the south include penalties equaling the state violence perpetrated against the migrants for employers. Employment is the main reason migrants come to the US but employers are not penalized as harshly as the migrants. The real purpose of 'plans' to reduce migration are to increase employers power over their labor force, keeping wages down and suppressing agitation for safer working conditions.
An important purpose of Biden's plan--maybe the most important pupose-- is for Biden to be able to say that he did SOMETHING. He can talk about his something to voters, and defend it as reasonable but decisive when he debates Trump. He can attack Trump for strong arming his own party into refusing to take "yes" for an answer to the GOP's own damn plan.
I realize this is a political problem for Biden,
Thus, a political solution. Regardless of whether this stands up to legal scrutiny, the whole point is to show something is being done with the powers President has especially when even a compromise bill written by a Republican U.S. Oklahoma no less can't get past Congress. So you've gotta do, what you've gotta do. But the problem is, is it too late? politcially speaking.