I honestly can't tell anymore if border hawks object to the Senate immigration bill for real reasons or made-up political reasons. But for what it's worth, here are the main objections from NumbersUSA:
- Codifies catch&release
- Codifies admin. rule allowing asylum officers not judges to grant asylum
- Instant work permits to asylum seekers
- Fails to end abuse of humanitarian parole or UAC loopholes
- Adds 50,000 green cards/year for 5 years
- Work authorization for adult children of H-1Bs
- Adds "border emergency authority" w/out real enforcement teeth, only activated until 5,000 illegal southwest border entries per day
For what it's worth, here's my perspective:
- Catch & release is a function of not having enough detention space for everyone who's caught crossing the border. Trump did it too. But the Senate bill allocates more than $3 billion to increase detention capacity and another chunk of money to increase the number of asylum judges. Together, these provisions will reduce the backlog of asylum seekers and provide more detention space. Nothing can guarantee the end of catch & release, but unless I'm missing something the Senate bill would go a long way toward reining it in.
- The point of giving asylum officers emergency authority to decide asylum claims is to reduce the number of asylum seekers waiting for a court date. Sure, in theory, this could lead to asylum officers letting everyone in, but there's not a person on the planet who thinks this is what will actually happen.
- "Instant" work permits are indeed one of the few prices that hawks have to pay in this bill. But it's designed to keep illegal immigrants from clogging up shelters because they can't find jobs while they wait for court dates.
- The additional green cards are for legal, skilled immigrants. Is that really a problem?
- Yes, children of skilled immigrants would also be allowed to work. This is genuinely trivial.
- Border emergency authority starts at 5,000 encounters per day, and it's enforced the same way any other law is enforced. It might not be as much as hawks would like, but surely it's better than no emergency authority at all?
Republicans are missing a bet. Right now illegal immigration is high because the job market is tight, but that won't last forever. When jobs get harder to find, illegal immigration will decrease and the "crisis" will be over. There will no longer be a lot of public and media panic over it, and the chances of passing tough immigration reforms will be gone. This is the lesson of Brexit: strike while the immigration iron is hot. You don't have forever.
Uh, Kevin, methinks they don't CARE about "passing tough immigration reforms." They don't CARE about overwhelmed asylum officers and courts. or overcrowding at shelters. And they CERTAINLY don't care about undocumented immigrants being released and trying to find work, because their donor class profits handsomely from their low-cost, zero-negotiating power labor doing jobs that nobody else will do at anywhere near what they're paid.
They. Don't. CARE. about the facts or reality of illegal immigration. They. Don't. CARE. about "fixing" it. They don't WANT to fix it.
What they want is to shriek and scream about brown, non-American-speaking, criminal, disease-bearing, child-factory ILLEGALS INVADING OUR BORDER. And they want that because their constituency is heavily racist, skews old and fearful, and is constantly told that Big Gummint is taking Their Money and spending it on lazy undeserving Others.
i am continually amazed at the degree to which people will twist themselves into pretzels trying to avoid saying this, even though both Republican politicians and the Republican base know it perfectly well.
Bullseye.
I find the authority to shut down the border particularly odious. If you do allow that, at least you ought to fund the demolition crew to take down the Statue of Liberty.
No need for that, though. Senate GOP-ers are coming around to Trump (a shocker!) and the bill will fail. Next up: analysis of how the politics on immigration works from this point on. GOP: "It's an effing invasion!" Dems: "Republicans whined about immigration and we had a fix for the problem until those same Republicans turned it down." NY Times: "Looks like Joe Biden can't get anything done."
Since the biggest reason anybody is talking about immigration is because we need aid for Ukraine and immigration was the ransom Democrats were willing to pay, what does this mean for Ukraine?
I realize the CW is that Trump nixed the immigration deal because he wants to campaign on "the crisis," but I think people underestimate how much he wanted to nix the deal to kill aid for Ukraine. A onetime president doing Putin's bidding should not be so unthinkable by now.
What it's all about. From Josh Marshall:
What a tragic fucking disgrace.
Yes a disgrace- Like selling out the Kurds
Memo to our allies- It's not about loyalty or the good fight anymore
Don't deliver dirt on Hunter - you're screwed
If your arch enemy builds a Trump Hotel in Istanbul - you're screwed.
When Taiwan chips are no longer indispensable - . . .
I would note that last weekend's New Yorker Radio Hour had a nice segment as to how the main problem with US immigration policy is acting as if Central America does not exist.
I note there does not appear to be anything in this bill, even though it is touted as a "major" bill, targeted at getting less people to walk to the southern border based on making it more desirable to just stay put.
Interestingly, various attempts have been made in past (Democratic) administrations along these lines, and the results unfortunately have been underwhelming. One reason is, some -- and from some countries at some times many -- migrants are basically refugees: they're fleeing violence or unsurvivable poverty, the first of which is sometimes the official or unofficial policy of their government and the second of which would require assistance on a scale that would be politically impossible -- even ridiculous -- at the best of times in the US. Another is, even where neither violence nor catastrophe drives them from their homes, many -- I would guess most -- are attracted by the prospect of a better life and are willing to put themselves and their families through hell to try to achieve it. That is a powerful force to try to countervail, and again, even to try to do so would require commitment and expenditure of a degree that is politically unrealistic in the US, certainly now and likely for a while.
IIRC, there have been some (limited) successes that might be expanded upon and collectively could have some effect at reducing the incentives for, and thus to some degree the volume of, migration. But within the constraints of US politics -- especially now -- I'd say were probably stuck with experimentation at most, and as long as there are strong economic incentives to do so -- and I don't see what's going to change that -- there will be migration.
I wish people in Central America (and people all over the world) were free and happy and prosperous. They could come to America for summer vacation. They could catch a ballgame, or a ride a Disneyland, or go for a hike in the Tetons. Then go home again.
But for some (apparently unmentionable) reason they have other plans when they come. Something about hopes and dreams.
I tend to think it's a good thing that they think of America when they think about their hopes and dreams. The alternative seems like a country (not to mention, a world) hardly worth living in.
[There are 7 objections and 6 perspectives. There is no perspective for objection 4, "Fails to end abuse", so that the remaining three appear misnumbered.]
"Republicans are missing a bet. "
I disagree
1. Republicans are actually, clearly making a bet: not signing up for this deal, is better for the GOP than agreeing to the legislation.
2. The GOP probably does not want to 'solve' immigration. Sadly, from my point of view, the Republican position/s seems closer to the center, on this topic, than the Democrat's policy preferences: for those who disagree with me, I say look at Biden's polling on immigration.
3. TALKING about immigration is politically, one of the only subject that Trump has...
4. The optics of Democratic majors, such as Adams, complaining about immigration is catnip to the GOP.
Regarding pt 2-
It seems unlikely that poll participants have a thorough understanding of Repiblican, Democrat and specifically Bidens preferred immigration policies.
Most people dont pay particularly close attention to policy specifics.
For many years now it hasnt been clear that the GOP has actual, specific policies on immigration.
The reason they keep fighting immigration reform is the same reason they aren't camped out at the Canadian border, or putting up razor wire to catch anyone sneaking south from Vancouver.
They. Hate. Latinos.
They want to keep America white, because they are white supremacists.
Everything else here is just noise.
"They. Hate. Latinos."
For some of them that is true. But Trump, for example, just wants something to use at his campaign, and that also applies to large number of other Republican politicians.
"...Nothing can guarantee the end of catch & release, .."
How about getting rid of the right to asylum?
That would certainly be ... inhumane to the point of barbarism.
But then, a lot of Republicans felt the same way about European Jews and others in the 1920s and 1930s. I mean, blah blah pogroms blah blah expropriation and violence, just what gives anyone the right to invade our Sacred Shores, especially the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of other teeming shores, etc? Really when you think about it, they're poisoning our blood.
"When jobs get harder to find, illegal immigration will decrease and the "crisis" will be over. There will no longer be a lot of public and media panic over it, and the chances of passing tough immigration reforms will be gone."
Good lord. The "crisis" will never be over. A public and media panic can always be conjured. Immigration reform is simply not something that neither the Republican base nor the Republican elites want. The former because of ethnic bigotry and the latter becaue criminalizing immigrants provides a steady source of cheap labor with no legal protections. It's a beautiful self-lubricating machine.
"How about getting rid of the right to asylum?"
Some background to weigh along with this question.
(from the ACLE website)
"The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States passed its own federal law in the Refugee Act of 1980, for people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that individuals who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.
In either case, people seeking asylum at the border are subjected to a criminal background and security check. They must then navigate a complex and lengthy process, involving multiple government agencies, in order to prove that they have a well founded fear of persecution. Those who lose their cases and any appeals are ordered removed and are deported."
I am a liberal who supports truly open borders in theory and significantly increased legal immigration in practice.
Every one of my mainstream conservatives friends is open to a trade of more legal immigration for less asylum and illegal immigration. It’s time for liberals to quit spending so much political capital on defending chaos and to focus on expanding normal, regular, vetted immigration where people get permission first and then come through the front door, invitation in hand.
Your "mainstream conservatives friends" are not a representative sample of conservatives in general.
Lots of people say they have friends who say one thing or another. I have no idea how true your statement is, or if the conservatives you know really believe the things they say to you. But there are a few things I bet are true.
When Obama first came to office he deported a record number of people. He then got the republicans in congress to negotiate a deal that included strict border enforcement and an increase in the number of legal immigrants. There were more than enough votes to pass it, but of course it didn't pass because less than 50% of the Rs in the house supported it which meant they refused to bring it to a vote.
If the conservatives you know were to be asked about this I'm sure they would claim that they have no memory of it. Now I have no crystal ball to look into, but I have often found in cases like this that the people in question did hear about it at the time. The reason they don't remember it is because they don't really care. It is just an issue to say how bad Democrats are or how bad Mexicans are or whatever dumb excuse.
There have been SEVERAL other attempts to make deals. Dems negotiated with Trump's people and when it looked like a deal may be in hand, the Rs decided that they would only make an agreement if the Dems accepted lower legal immigration. Again, I'm sure the conservatives would have no memory of it. Yet I suspect they did hear about it and just didn't care.
And we have another deal in hand. And all the conservative you know are well aware of it. And I'm sure if you mentioned it to them in a few years they would claim not to remember any details, but obviously the Dems should stop pushing for more illegal immigration.
Oh, and your conservative friends, their ancestors didn't have an invitation to come. They just showed up and were let in. And if some of them didn't come until after 1965 when the law was changed, guess what - they were only allowed in because the law didn't work like it was expected to. In fact, if the Rs could do it, they would go back in time and rewrite the 1965 law so that most of the legal immigrants over the last 50 years wouldn't be let in.
But sure. The problem is the Democrats.
Kevin's love of rational discussion blinds him to the realities of politics. Trump Republicans want a never-ending "border crisis". They want Russia to overwhelm Ukraine. They believe, probably correctly, that both would hurt Biden's re-election chances. They thought making aid to Ukraine conditional on "fixing the border" was a genius way to achieve both their objectives while appearing to do the opposite. Democrats called their bluff by proposing changes Republicans never dreamed they would, but that doesn't alter Trump Republicans' original agenda. All that's happened is their duplicity's been exposed.
Is this the closest you'll ever get to making a post about V/U?
🤦
> Right now illegal immigration is high because the job market is tight, but that won't last forever. When jobs get harder to find, illegal immigration will decrease and the "crisis" will be over.
I’d say there is a ‘demand’ side of the equation that’s like to the economy and a ‘supply’ side that’s linked, at least in part, to asylum seekers.
Something's going to snap.
Mike Johnson's spine? The federal budget negotiations? Democratic resolve?
Don't know which, but something will give and it will have ripple effects in November.
And Biden's SOTU address won't happen for another month. That's a long time for all this to fester and ferment while events in other parts of the world continue heating up. Pressure just keeps building.
And you know, it's just remarkable how trump's power play on domestic institutions has been made possible by the coincidence of Russian pressure on Ukraine and Iranian proxies' pressure from the eastern Mediterranean around to the Persian Gulf.
IIRC, if nothing happens on the budget, current ruling law is that we start making major defense cuts in about April. Maybe that kind of result is what somebody wants from all this chaos? If so, maybe what snaps is the Pentagon.
"Right now illegal immigration is high because the job market is tight"
I don't know why Kevin keeps saying this. In the past high illegal immigration has been linked to large numbers of young Mexicans in Mexico. That overrode all other factors.
The reason illegal immigration is so high now has to do with some absolutely terrible economic conditions and a lot of repressive regimes. I will concede that you still wouldn't expect this many migrants given the condition of the world, but at the same time people are walking through a 1000 miles of jungle and then maybe, just maybe, are allowed to stay in the US and work at mostly the bottom tier of jobs. All while the press keeps saying the economy is bad. I just don't believe a tight job market is the driving force.
Pingback: Chait heart Douthat | Zingy Skyway Lunch