I suppose the Senate immigration bill doesn't really matter since Republicans have made it clear they plan to sink it. But there's still the theoretical question of whether Democrats ought to support it. That is, not as a compromise just to get Ukraine aid, but on its own merits. Is the border security part of the bill good on its own?
I confess I've lost my political bearings on this in recent years. Obviously Democrats tend to be softer on border security than Republicans. We generally don't think immigrants—legal or otherwise—are a threat. We don't think it makes sense to even think about deporting kids who grew up here. And regardless of anything else, we don't want illegal immigrants treated cruelly: kids held in detention, families broken up, etc.
But that said, what's the objection to tighter border security? Every modern country has borders and immigration barriers, and there's nothing special about the United States in that regard. Why shouldn't we protect our borders?
I understand not caring very much about the border. That describes me. I just don't think it matters all that much how many migrants we let in. At the same time, I don't deliberately want a porous border either.
Roughly speaking, the Senate immigration bill does two big things. First, it makes it easier to deport illegal immigrants. That seems unobjectionable. Second, it speeds up asylum decisions. This is a good thing no matter which side you're on. If you qualify for asylum, it's best not to keep you waiting ten years to find out. If you don't, it's best not to wait ten years to deport you.
So speaking for myself, the border provisions of the Senate bill mostly seem positive. They would tighten up border security moderately; speed up asylum hearings; provide counsel at immigration courts; and do nothing to make our treatment of immigrants more inhumane. No mass deportations. No ICE raids. No razor wire.
So yeah, I'd vote for it. Add in the Ukraine aid and the Gaza humanitarian aid, and it's even better. The Israel aid is a negative at this point, since I can no longer see a good case for actively supporting Netanyahu's brutality, but it's not enough to kill the bill—especially since, realistically, the Israel aid is probably going to pass Congress one way or another.
It might be pie in the sky as long as Mike Johnson refuses to bring up the bill in the House, but given a chance I'd say it's worth voting for.
I'd vote for it to. Plus, no Congress can bind a future Congress, so particularly noxious provisions in theory could be excised at a later date.
I disagree, because I think the voting bloc that would credit Democrats for a bipartisan deal toughening up the border is a centrist/journalist myth. Those who would tar Democrats as soft on the border would not be appeased by this kind of bill.
And by contrast, there are those who would punish Democrats for passing such a deal and would otherwise vote Democrat, so...
Maybe, but at this point I don't think it's just mythical centrist swing voters who are concerned about border security and immigration. Polling shows a large number of dem voters believe there are too many immigrants and border security is a problem. And it does seem that we've reached a point where as a simple logistical matter, whether you are happy with this level of immigration or not, it's become unsustainable to process people and find places for them to go at this rate and with this level of resources. Will some dem voters punish the party for a bill like this? Probably. But I don't think it's obvious whether the net result will be positive for negative for Biden and the down ballot dems.
And why should we fall into the trap of measuring every act by the amount of electoral credit it delivers? That's been the GOP's game all the way back to Gingrich's day.
What about what makes sense for running the country effectively?
are you new to concept of democracy? the amount of votes something delivers is the only standard, as it should be.
Obviously you can have other standards.
Does this provide benefit to a group that needs it? Does this improve/address a problem? Does this improve quality of life?
Many more.
Your desire to judge everything on future vote counts obviously has absolutely nothing to do with Democracy.
"are you new to concept of democracy? the amount of votes something delivers is the only standard, as it should be."
This is the exact same argument racists used to keep Blacks oppressed from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement, and beyond. When you let the wolves vote on the fate of the sheep, democracy is pretty much a sham.
Anyone who deems themselves a moral or ethical person should consider more than just "what gets me the most votes".
I'm sorry, but I thought the "makes sense for running the country effectively" automatically disqualified this bill. We need more legal immigration pathways, not less, so...
BINGO. There is no mushy middle there are only xenophobia, those who wish to exploit xenophobia for their own ends and those who want to fix our broken immigration system. There is no overlap between the reformists and the xenophobia/xenophobia adjacent crowd. Thus no credible path to reform until we have a sing party in control of all the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
"How should liberals feel about the border bill?" I say it depends:
- IF you focus is on winning in 2024, then here is my sense of the reality. Biden, Tester and Brown would likely benefit from passing this bill. Without victory for the aforementioned group, most all the other liberal goals, go out the window....thus you support
- IF your focus is on your values and ideals, then oppose the bill. Many important features are missing and money for the wall etc run counter to your goals.
Then again, I am a Democrat but not always a liberal.
I'd say if your focus is on your values and ideals, your focus has to be on winning in 2024.
I'm with you, Kevin.
Nothing in the bill seems bad (except aid to Israel, I'm with you there).
My feeling is liberals feel obliged to hold their noses; how could anything Republicans would vote for be anything other than awful? Those guys are awful, especially on the border!
I get that, but seriously, what in the bill (besides Israel aid) is bad? Specifics please.
The reason Republicans are winning on the border is vibes. Democrats refuse to take a stand, it can feel like they want near-open borders but won't come out and say it outright. Reflexively treating a not-bad bill as an awful compromise reinforces that notion.
A growing number of liberals feel it is immoral to deport anyone who comes here trying to better their lives.
"Why shouldn't we protect our borders?"
They would respond with "Why do they need protecting from people who just want a job?"
For myself I want less illegal immigrants and care a lot about Ukraine so I'd vote for it no problem.
The fact that we're debating a "border bill" is a failure of our politics. Congress ought to be working on an immigration reform bill, with border security only a small part of it. The focus of immigration reform should be to allow more immigrants to come legally to the US, and one of its first provisions should be to grant amnesty to the many Americans who now live here but did not enter legally. In other words, I agree with this guy:
"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."
That was no open borders radical. It was President Ronald Reagan, in a debate with Walter Mondale in 1984.
Tightening border security to make it harder to come to this country is the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We should want more immigrants, and we should want immigrants to enter and stay here legally.
And if you think the wrong type of people are coming into the country, chances are you racism is showing. As I've said (somewhere) before, if we were in the mid-1800s again, we'd be better off letting in a boatload of poor Irish than a boatload of English nobility.
On top of it all, I think "the crisis on the border" is all bullshit. It's a right-wing campaign to turn this country into a goddamn fortress. The politics that allows both parties to agree we have a crisis is the politics that makes this country suckier than it should be.
I'd like to know why this chart is not part of the national debate. It looks like the current policy, post-Title 42, is doing exactly what people say we ought to be doing: greatly reducing the number of people who come into the country illegally. Biden should be taking a victory lap, not conceding the debate to other side.
But that's not where the conversation is. For the record, I don't think Biden or Dems need a "win" on border policy for the upcoming election. I think there's only one reason for voting for this bill, even if it's ransom paid to hostage-takers.
Ukraine!
Ukraine!
Ukraine!
Tightening border security to make it harder to come to this country is the opposite of what we ought to be doing.
You actually thing "tightening border security" is the opposite of what America should be doing? I'm pretty much Stephen Miller's worst nightmare when it comes to what I think ideal immigration policy should be (we could easily be issuing double the number of green cards); but even an immigration fanboi like me doesn't actually believe an insecure border is desirable. Good grief.
And in any event the bill doesn't affect the regular immigration programs, so I'm not sure what you mean by the above. Clearly most Americans want it to be "harder to come to this country" when the arrivals in question are unauthorized migrants.
Thank you. Positions like Harbin's are electoral poison.
Shouldn't we be in favor of following the law?
"Shouldn't we be in favor of following the law?"
Only if you agree with the law... For example, I think marihuana should be legal. If I live in a state where it's not, should I support more resources for arresting people who use it just because they're breaking the law?
"electoral poison"
I'm not running for office. If I ever do, you have every right to vote against me. Fair?
"Shouldn't we be in favor of following the law?"
The history of immigration in American in 3 easy steps:
1. Move to America when immigration policy is lax and open
2. Tighten policy to make it nearly impossible to immigrate legally
3. Complain about new immigrants who aren't following the law
"Shouldn't we be in favor of following the law?"
All these immigrants who are applying for asylum and who are making bigots and centrists lose their shit about an "insecure border" are following the law, yet people are still complaining. It's not the number of people coming in, nor is it the method (legal or otherwise) of how they come in, it's the color of their skin, and the spelling of their last name that is driving all this fear.
Just as a matter of logic what are you proposing?
"Tightening border security to make it harder to come to this country is the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We should want more immigrants, and we should want immigrants to enter and stay here legally."
Legal immigration or illegal immigration? Or both, whatever, who cares, we just want more?
The US domestic birth rate is low enough that immigration policy determines population growth. The US has ENOUGH people. Therefore, the focus of immigration policy should be to achieve zero population growth.
"The US has ENOUGH people."
We still have TOO MANY whiners, kooks, and Republicans. (But I repeat myself.) I suggest we get rid of them and let more immigrants in.
"the focus of immigration policy should be to achieve zero population growth"
What's magical about zero growth? Is zero the right number, or do we want a slightly growing/declining population? Or shouldn't we be focused on maintaining/achieving a particular ratio of people of different age cohorts?
My preference would be a slowly declining population, but zero growth is easy to understand, easy to measure, and easy to achieve.
but zero growth is easy to understand, easy to measure, and easy to achieve.
"Zero population growth" isn't remotely possible to achieve, much less "easy" to achieve. Zero population growth by definition means no increase or decrease whatsoever. Reaching that precise figure is pretty much impossible, mathematically. Every year all countries either grow or shrink, at least modestly.
Declining or increasing population of various speeds is infinitely easier to achieve than literal "zero population growth." Perhaps you should root for very slow increase or decrease.
Curious why you think the US has enough people and zero population growth should be our goal?
If you are at all concerned about environmental issues, from global warming to habitat loss to pollution then the answer should be obvious. An ever increasing population means ever increasing environmental problems. And Americans, I believe, still consume resources and produce greenhouse gasses at the highest rate in the world.
No, the answer isn't obvious, even if I care about all of that. To solve any of those problems, you need to be concerned about global population growth. Whether those people live in the United States or somewhere else is largely immaterial to those questions.
Does the US restricting immigration lead to lower population growth globally? No, it doesn't. Your arguments are irrelevant.
we're talking about immigrants, not new net births. these are people who already exist in the world and are coming from countries with higher rates of population than in the US, where population growth is closing in on 0%/yr. So allowing immigrants to come here likely decreases net global population because of higher levels of income, education and health care etc.
Can anyone tell me what the hell a 'liberal' is, at least in this context?
if the house delays the release of bibi's funding he might have to slow his roll a bit in gaza
and biden might be ok with that aspect of the impasse (even though it messes with ukraine as well)
It's insanity for the country to debate border policy and then fail to provide resources to make the policy work. If we have laws that set standards for who can enter, then we need to fund the courts that adjudicate cases. We need money to pay folks to stop people from circumventing the law. That is, unless we're at a point where we're ready to take down the big green statue in New York.
"If we have laws that set standards for who can enter, then we need to fund the courts that adjudicate cases."
Yes.
I think the 2013 bill was a reasonable bill, negotiated in good faith. Not perfect, but reasonable. The inability to pass the 2013 bill has opened the door to bad faith negotations.
"But that said, what's the objection to tighter border security? Every modern country has borders and immigration barriers, and there's nothing special about the United States in that regard. Why shouldn't we protect our borders?"
We're a nation of immigrants, literally, it's on the pamphlets, in the marketing, there's this big statue when you walk in the country. So philosophically, I believe most of these immigrants make our country better.
We have lots of illegal immigrants/undocumented workers. I don't think this is great for us or them. There are two ways to solve it -- rather draconian measures to make sure illegal immigrants can't get in and try to force those are hear out. Mostly, it just ends up to leading to all the inhumane things that makes us liberals mad. So, as I've said before, for me the solution is to find a way to make most of these illegal immigrants into legal immigrants.
I'm not opposed to spending money on border security if it isn't going to brutalizing impoverished people who just want a better life, if it can work as a successful policy, and if it isn't just being used to feel anti-nonwhite paranoia. Long term, what does this bill get us? Short term, what does this bill get us? I'm not seeing a lot of upside.
But yeah, in an ideal world where immigration issues were being resolved, improved border security might be fine.
I think it was Krugman who asked people to think about how immigration has actually affected them personally. For me it meant we were able to get our roof fixed after Hurricane Ian and our lawn gets mowed. You?
A new roof here too. I can't imagine what we'd do with all the rain we're getting this week.
My parents are getting the expert skilled nursing care they need from immigrants. Also their doctors
One issue with the US/Mexico border is that it is so long and in general so unpopulated that if people are willing and able to walk a couple of hundred miles (or less), it's really very hard to make the border non-porous without the sort of wall Trump blah'ed about. As we've seen, even a wall doesn't actually do much when there's nobody actually watching 90% of it.
If you look at e,g. european borders pre-Schengen zone, they are much shorter, and much more populated (even the coastlines) and much more "developed", making the sort of flow we see from MX to USA almost impossible.
I am not unsympathetic to the idea of an non-porous border, but I don;'t see a way to physically make that happen.
lots of pics out there of trump's not-a-wall that has holes cut in it
wapo: trump's $10 billion fence vs sawzall
that's a good 50% of my point.
it's porous without a wall.
it's porous with a wall.
you can't make an empty, wild line of nearly 2000 miles non-porous.
"you can't make an empty, wild line of nearly 2000 miles non-porous."
You can make it _more_ porous, though, such as by building out the road and service infrastructure necessary to build and maintain a thousand miles of idjit wall.
And as a bonus, you get to wreck a bunch of wilderness.
This is why it is not worth making a big deal about a wall. It won't work and even if it worked it isn't inhumane, just stupid.
And yet "build the wall" works.
simple solutions for simple minds
Republicans have been very successful in painting Democrats as wanting “open boarders” when the truth is nothing like that. Remember, Obama was called “deporter in chief” by some.
Meanwhile Republicans seem to have a large faction of people in power whose solution to illegal immigration is murdering people trying to cross including children and this seems to get relatively unnoticed.
The Republicans are going to reject the border bill. I think the Democrats need to make it clear that we want a solution and they want a final solution.
"murdering people trying to cross"
Well, that and employing them in their sweatshops.
My opinion (without any solid facts to back it up), is that the ground on this has shifted right for mainstream Democrats and folks who voted for Biden in 2020. The thousands of migrants bussed to northeast cities has been a very effective ploy, and now we have thousands of migrants in the NYC metro area that need shelter, schools, support, and are draining financial resources, all of which has been very troubling to suburbanites who voted for Biden in 2020.
The GOP ads for George Santo's replacement in the House have all been attacks on immigration. This will be the repeated continuously in November. If MAGA doesn't pass the bill, that could be a useful attack for Democrats, painting the GOP as doing nothing for the border and also a friend of Putin (assuming no $ for Ukraine).
The whole "border control" issue is total horseshit. There are millions and millions of Americans who love the fact that undocumented aliens are mowing their lawns and cleaning their fast food restaurants and picking their lettuce. For all the pearl clutching about border crossings, ICE rarely - if ever - prosecutes the American citizens who stand in line to pay sub-minimum wages to the undocumented workers. If the people can't get any work in the U.S. they'll go back home.
We could do a lot more about immigration by focusing on the demand side--making it much harder for businesses to employ undocumented immigrants and punishing them when they do--than by focusing on the supply side by tweaking border security. If we were serious about reducing illegal immigration, this is what we would do. But we are not serious about it.
All that said, the bill is fine and I hope it passes, though it won't help much. But it might convince a few know nothings that Biden and the Democrats are "doing something" about "the border".
making it much harder for businesses to employ undocumented immigrants
take a page from the texas playbook and allow any US citizen to sue businesses employing undocumented migrants for $10,000 per laborer
From Kevin:
"But that said, what's the objection to tighter border security? Every modern country has borders and immigration barriers, and there's nothing special about the United States in that regard. Why shouldn't we protect our borders?"
This statement strikes me, and no doubt countless other voters, as common sense. But, sorry, I believe the Dems have been largely radicalized on the issue. Here's the Atlantic from all the way back in 2019:
"But the political rise of Donald Trump has radicalized many of his opponents on immigration. Some mainstream liberal commentators, such as Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times, have called for completely open borders. While not many Democrats have gone that far publicly, some—including most prominently the 2020 presidential hopefuls—have expressed ever greater unease about removing people who cross borders unauthorized."
I'm not certain what to call it. Trump Derangement Syndrome? The Fox News Fallacy? Something else? But whatever it's called, I believe the phenomenon is real. Trump arguably rode the immigration issue to his electoral college victory in 2016. Fox News continues to focus on the issue. And the extent of their dishonesty or demagoguery should be acknowledged while also acknowledging the extent to which the Dems responded with a radicalization of their own.
And that's why such innocuous terms as "border security" become so toxic on the Left. "Border Security" is something that Trump promotes and Fox News weaponizes; hence, Democrats seem to feel that they must renounce it. And if they keep renouncing it, they will lose.
When was the last time any Democratic president cared what liberals feel about anything? It's been triangulation and hippie-punching since the 90s.
Democrats cave in to the Republicans instead of loudly pointing out that they are dishonest, hateful bigots. They do not point that out because the great majority of white Americans are dishonest, hateful bigots and Democrats have spent the last 50 years devoting their campaigns to winning those votes.
There will be a handful of idealogues on the left who will not vote for it, but only because they know there's enough crossover from the right to pass the bill in the House. The rest of Democrats will vote to support.
It'll be a huge Biden win and it'll enrage Trump. Trump may end up breaking apart the GOP. If so, I would like to see a 3-party system in its wake.
Looks doubtful. Democrats need nine Republicans to break a filibuster, and McConnell, who's about as stout a champion of Ukraine aid as Republicans can find these days, has already come out against the bill. And in the miraculous event it makes it to the House, Mike Johnson is already a "no."
Republicans smartly (if cynically and destructively) don't want to give Biden a win nine months before an election.
Sure, nothing's impossible, but at this point I fear your sunny prognostication regarding this legislation is about as sound as your prediction that Trump's going to be defeated for the nomination.
But I hope I'm wrong!
Pingback: Chait heart Douthat | Zingy Skyway Lunch
Pingback: Actually solving the “crisis at the border” isn’t a priority for Republicans – Justin DaMetz