You know which senator gets the immigration issue? My senator Coal Joe Manchin. Or as he says "WV needs the immigration - that is where our doctors and specialists come from"
I may not always love him but he crushes that Wins-Above-Replacement like Shohei Ohtani
I have a feeling all the talk about America becoming a majority non-white country and that locking in Democratic electoral wins forever really made bipartisan immigration deals impossible.
It’s worth reflecting on the political realignment that makes the 2007/2013 potential compromises unworkable as frameworks going forward. Immigration used to be a rare topic that was not neatly polarized across parties. Republicans were split between a nativist base and pro-immigration business community, Dems divided between open borders idealists and labor unions protecting their turf. This drove both years of stalemate plus opportunity for bipartisan agreement (as in 1986 and almost in 2007/2013).
Post Trump we have Republicans organized around “immigrants are bad period” while Democrats play footsie with “any immigration restrictions or enforcement are bad period”. Pro-immigration corporate republicans have moved to be anti-Trump Dems, and labor has made peace with immigrants as an important source of new members. It’s hard to imagine any legislative deal being reached without a filibuster proof trifecta of one side or the other in this political configuration.
I think it’s interesting that you included that glib mention of car thefts because I actually think that the impact of intentional non-enforcement of burglaries IS actually a big political issue!
In Philly/SF/other jurisdictions with aggressively progressive prosecutors there is a major debate over whether ‘soft’ sentencing encourages more of these types of crime. I think most people acknowledge that car theft would continue under a stricter regime (and would still be bad) but proponents would argue that increased/harsher enforcement would lead to less commission.
With the usual caveats about how immigration shouldn’t be compared to crime (though you started it) the political situations seem pretty comparable.
The problem is that there is very little trust that the Democrats would hold up their end of such a bargain. They would get the amnesty right away, but why should anyone believe that they would enforce the new laws, when they have demonstrated no willingness to enforce the ones that are currently on the book?
Pre 2013, the Democrats had at least some credibility on this issue. Obama did step up enforcement and was willing to take some flak from the left for it. And there were prominent voices in the party supporting him. I understand why he pivoted after the second attempt at a compromise bill fell apart, but the fact is that he did pivot, he used executive power to grant amnesty, scaled back internal enforcement, and the party has never looked back.
The idea that Biden would enforce stricter laws and actually deport significant numbers of people who did not fall under the amnesty is ludicrous. He has shown zero appetite for standing up to the progressive left on any issue. And he was the *most* centrist candidate in the 2020 primary.
If Matt is right that there are many Democrats in Congress who are concerned about the way the asylum process works, then why not start with passing a bipartisan bill that fixes that problem? And if E-Verify is included, then that would be even better. As Matt often points out in other contexts, if there is something that should be done that a majority of Congress thinks is good on the merits, then just pass it, without using it as a lever to get the other side to yield on something else.
Good article. The phrase that really resonated with me is that asylum seekers have swallowed up the system, and the debate. So true. Modern immigrants seek asylum as their first choice, because word of mouth has taught them it works. A bevy of immigration lawyers pile on to the problem, as they don’t give a hoot about breaking the system, they just care about their clients and helping them use any means available to stay in the US. Can’t blame them, but it has overwhelmed and thus broken the system. The flood of asylum seekers has made it impossible to differentiate true need. Drastic measures will be required to fix this, which will absolutely jeopardize some seekers with true need, but in the long run it will be better for everybody.
The reason we are inundated with asylum seekers is that several Central American countries are basically failed states, where drug gangs get to murder and extort with impunity (my apologies and meaning no personal insult to anyone from Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras reading these words.) Plus, climate change means terrible droughts and loss of farming. How can we/should we help Central America develop to the point where people *want* to stay there?
We talk about immigration like it's an unalloyed good, but for plenty of people, it's the least bad option - they don't want to leave, but feel forced to do so. Homesickness is a thing; nostalgia is a thing. Many people would be happier if they could stay in a peaceful and prosperous Guatemala rather than abandoning everything they know and moving to a new country where they don't know anyone and may not feel like they fit in.
Is there any realistic way to help Central America without being neo-imperialist or having a bunch of really bad unintended consequences?
The Trump administration seemed to have found a legal or semi-legal method to make all people who file asylum claims to wait in Mexico for those claims to be adjudicated, whereas the Biden administration seems to have returned to the pre-Trump status quo of letting asylum seekers wait for their trial in the US.
If asylum seekers are waiting in Mexico, Mexico has a VERY powerful incentive to play ball with teh US and reduce the total flow of illegal immigrants moving north. If asylum seekers are allowed to pass through Mexico into the US, then Mexico doesn't care as much about how many people are passing through Mexico.
Am I missing something? Why wasn't this in the piece?
A question I have is why the visa system in the US, say for people who want student visas, short-term work visas, or even tourist visas, is so screwed up. Like 2+ years to wait just to get an appointment for a short-stay visa, arbitrary denials, that kind of thing.
Seems like this problem could probably be solved by the executive branch without any partisan hacks noticing and turning it into a wedge, but I don't know what the root cause of the problem is. It's very mysterious. Any DC swamp creatures have some insight?
I think there needs to be a point made about the failures of the old consensus to be enacting legislatively. In 2007 the GOP was not behind their own President's proposal, while a handful of mostly conservative/populist red-state Democratic Senators weren't on board. But in 2013, the GOP had shifted enough as well as Democratic defections eliminated by it passed the Senate. The only roadblock was Speaker Boehner, who refused to bring it up for a vote because he was afraid of what the Freedom Caucus would do to him.
You look at 2007 and it's hard to say the proposal was only killed by the filibuster, as it didn't look close to being able to get even 50 votes in the Senate. But by 2013 the GOP had temporarily moderated, post-2012 defeat, that there was a strong interest in doing something. Boehner's cowardice still killed it though.
The hope that the U.S. can build out semiconductor manufacturing in a regionally “equitable” way seems really really hard to me. But the thing that I think could give it a decent shot to succeed is a heartland visa like system. That would make those regions attractive places to set up shop because they would have unique access to high skilled immigrants and you wouldn’t be relying purely on subsidies.
What about the effect of immigration on culture? As an immigrant myself, I don’t think it’s entirely positive. We bring our different ways of thinking and I don’t think it’s always a good thing. I think Americans seriously underestimate how long that socialization endures. I grew up in the US since age 5, and I’m still quite different in my thinking than other Americans.
Matt mentions historical immigration, but was that positive? I can’t help but notice that e.g. Italian immigration made New York City more like Italy (chaotic and disorganized). Wouldn’t it be better, or at least more orderly, if it was still New Amsterdam and populated by Dutch people?
I probably would grit my teeth and support such a compromise but the idea that we are prisoners of the state we are born into and only get to leave with permission even when leaving under literal threat of death seems really deeply fucked.
States really shouldn’t be able to control people in this way without some sort of underlying crime we shouldn’t be imprisoned where we don’t want to be.
I'm sure I'm a hapless naif on this topic, but is there any reason the US couldn't require asylum seekers from select countries (where the overwhelming majority of such applicants are clearly motivated mainly be economic reasons) to apply at a US embassy or consulate? (In other words no applications at the border?). An international treaty we've signed, perhaps?
Spot on. But this is going to be a really, really tough row to hoe. At its base, Trump's rise was about immigration and his acolytes have every incentive to shout as loudly about this as possible. It's just so easy for right wingers to point to an example of an immigrant committing a crime to shut down a reasonable debate over this topic, and the business wing of the Republican party (who would benefit enormously from an immigration compromise) has probably decided that it's not worth supporting the fight when they can use immigration as a tool to rile up voters.
You know which senator gets the immigration issue? My senator Coal Joe Manchin. Or as he says "WV needs the immigration - that is where our doctors and specialists come from"
I may not always love him but he crushes that Wins-Above-Replacement like Shohei Ohtani
I have a feeling all the talk about America becoming a majority non-white country and that locking in Democratic electoral wins forever really made bipartisan immigration deals impossible.
It’s worth reflecting on the political realignment that makes the 2007/2013 potential compromises unworkable as frameworks going forward. Immigration used to be a rare topic that was not neatly polarized across parties. Republicans were split between a nativist base and pro-immigration business community, Dems divided between open borders idealists and labor unions protecting their turf. This drove both years of stalemate plus opportunity for bipartisan agreement (as in 1986 and almost in 2007/2013).
Post Trump we have Republicans organized around “immigrants are bad period” while Democrats play footsie with “any immigration restrictions or enforcement are bad period”. Pro-immigration corporate republicans have moved to be anti-Trump Dems, and labor has made peace with immigrants as an important source of new members. It’s hard to imagine any legislative deal being reached without a filibuster proof trifecta of one side or the other in this political configuration.
I think it’s interesting that you included that glib mention of car thefts because I actually think that the impact of intentional non-enforcement of burglaries IS actually a big political issue!
In Philly/SF/other jurisdictions with aggressively progressive prosecutors there is a major debate over whether ‘soft’ sentencing encourages more of these types of crime. I think most people acknowledge that car theft would continue under a stricter regime (and would still be bad) but proponents would argue that increased/harsher enforcement would lead to less commission.
With the usual caveats about how immigration shouldn’t be compared to crime (though you started it) the political situations seem pretty comparable.
The problem is that there is very little trust that the Democrats would hold up their end of such a bargain. They would get the amnesty right away, but why should anyone believe that they would enforce the new laws, when they have demonstrated no willingness to enforce the ones that are currently on the book?
Pre 2013, the Democrats had at least some credibility on this issue. Obama did step up enforcement and was willing to take some flak from the left for it. And there were prominent voices in the party supporting him. I understand why he pivoted after the second attempt at a compromise bill fell apart, but the fact is that he did pivot, he used executive power to grant amnesty, scaled back internal enforcement, and the party has never looked back.
The idea that Biden would enforce stricter laws and actually deport significant numbers of people who did not fall under the amnesty is ludicrous. He has shown zero appetite for standing up to the progressive left on any issue. And he was the *most* centrist candidate in the 2020 primary.
If Matt is right that there are many Democrats in Congress who are concerned about the way the asylum process works, then why not start with passing a bipartisan bill that fixes that problem? And if E-Verify is included, then that would be even better. As Matt often points out in other contexts, if there is something that should be done that a majority of Congress thinks is good on the merits, then just pass it, without using it as a lever to get the other side to yield on something else.
Good article. The phrase that really resonated with me is that asylum seekers have swallowed up the system, and the debate. So true. Modern immigrants seek asylum as their first choice, because word of mouth has taught them it works. A bevy of immigration lawyers pile on to the problem, as they don’t give a hoot about breaking the system, they just care about their clients and helping them use any means available to stay in the US. Can’t blame them, but it has overwhelmed and thus broken the system. The flood of asylum seekers has made it impossible to differentiate true need. Drastic measures will be required to fix this, which will absolutely jeopardize some seekers with true need, but in the long run it will be better for everybody.
A missing common sense point is that illegal immigration is a victimless crime, and victimless crimes should be punished with fees, not exile.
The left no longer considers it a crime, and the right no longer considers it victimless.
Elephant in the room time!
The reason we are inundated with asylum seekers is that several Central American countries are basically failed states, where drug gangs get to murder and extort with impunity (my apologies and meaning no personal insult to anyone from Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras reading these words.) Plus, climate change means terrible droughts and loss of farming. How can we/should we help Central America develop to the point where people *want* to stay there?
We talk about immigration like it's an unalloyed good, but for plenty of people, it's the least bad option - they don't want to leave, but feel forced to do so. Homesickness is a thing; nostalgia is a thing. Many people would be happier if they could stay in a peaceful and prosperous Guatemala rather than abandoning everything they know and moving to a new country where they don't know anyone and may not feel like they fit in.
Is there any realistic way to help Central America without being neo-imperialist or having a bunch of really bad unintended consequences?
Isn't the key difference between Biden's border policy and Trump's border policy "Remain in Mexico"?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-ends-trump-era-remain-in-mexico-policy
The Trump administration seemed to have found a legal or semi-legal method to make all people who file asylum claims to wait in Mexico for those claims to be adjudicated, whereas the Biden administration seems to have returned to the pre-Trump status quo of letting asylum seekers wait for their trial in the US.
If asylum seekers are waiting in Mexico, Mexico has a VERY powerful incentive to play ball with teh US and reduce the total flow of illegal immigrants moving north. If asylum seekers are allowed to pass through Mexico into the US, then Mexico doesn't care as much about how many people are passing through Mexico.
Am I missing something? Why wasn't this in the piece?
A question I have is why the visa system in the US, say for people who want student visas, short-term work visas, or even tourist visas, is so screwed up. Like 2+ years to wait just to get an appointment for a short-stay visa, arbitrary denials, that kind of thing.
Seems like this problem could probably be solved by the executive branch without any partisan hacks noticing and turning it into a wedge, but I don't know what the root cause of the problem is. It's very mysterious. Any DC swamp creatures have some insight?
I think there needs to be a point made about the failures of the old consensus to be enacting legislatively. In 2007 the GOP was not behind their own President's proposal, while a handful of mostly conservative/populist red-state Democratic Senators weren't on board. But in 2013, the GOP had shifted enough as well as Democratic defections eliminated by it passed the Senate. The only roadblock was Speaker Boehner, who refused to bring it up for a vote because he was afraid of what the Freedom Caucus would do to him.
You look at 2007 and it's hard to say the proposal was only killed by the filibuster, as it didn't look close to being able to get even 50 votes in the Senate. But by 2013 the GOP had temporarily moderated, post-2012 defeat, that there was a strong interest in doing something. Boehner's cowardice still killed it though.
The hope that the U.S. can build out semiconductor manufacturing in a regionally “equitable” way seems really really hard to me. But the thing that I think could give it a decent shot to succeed is a heartland visa like system. That would make those regions attractive places to set up shop because they would have unique access to high skilled immigrants and you wouldn’t be relying purely on subsidies.
What about the effect of immigration on culture? As an immigrant myself, I don’t think it’s entirely positive. We bring our different ways of thinking and I don’t think it’s always a good thing. I think Americans seriously underestimate how long that socialization endures. I grew up in the US since age 5, and I’m still quite different in my thinking than other Americans.
Matt mentions historical immigration, but was that positive? I can’t help but notice that e.g. Italian immigration made New York City more like Italy (chaotic and disorganized). Wouldn’t it be better, or at least more orderly, if it was still New Amsterdam and populated by Dutch people?
I probably would grit my teeth and support such a compromise but the idea that we are prisoners of the state we are born into and only get to leave with permission even when leaving under literal threat of death seems really deeply fucked.
States really shouldn’t be able to control people in this way without some sort of underlying crime we shouldn’t be imprisoned where we don’t want to be.
I'm sure I'm a hapless naif on this topic, but is there any reason the US couldn't require asylum seekers from select countries (where the overwhelming majority of such applicants are clearly motivated mainly be economic reasons) to apply at a US embassy or consulate? (In other words no applications at the border?). An international treaty we've signed, perhaps?
Spot on. But this is going to be a really, really tough row to hoe. At its base, Trump's rise was about immigration and his acolytes have every incentive to shout as loudly about this as possible. It's just so easy for right wingers to point to an example of an immigrant committing a crime to shut down a reasonable debate over this topic, and the business wing of the Republican party (who would benefit enormously from an immigration compromise) has probably decided that it's not worth supporting the fight when they can use immigration as a tool to rile up voters.