One of the things that struck about the news this week was the sharp contrast between spin and reality. The spin on the failure of the immigration reform bill to pass the Senate was that Donald Trump’s call for Republicans to reject the bill and was purely politically driven. Was that the reality?
My understanding of the bill was that it allowed 2 million migrants into the United States, a combination of “asylum seekers” (5,000/day X 365 days), “gotaways”, and unaccompanied minors before requiring the president to take any action. The counter-spin is that it “normalized” the status quo.
Lost in the spin and counter-spin was whether it was the right policy or not. I do not think it is the right policy and I will give just one, simple example of why it is not.
Here’s the history of what are called “housing units” (homes plus apartments) in Chicago over the last 20 years:
| Year | Housing units | Percent |
| 2000 | 1,152,867 | |
| 2010 | 1,194,337 | 4% |
| 2022 | 1,152,871 | -4% |
or, said another way, the number of housing units in the City of Chicago has remained unchanged over the period of the last 20 years. The number of migrants entering the country has been 1-2% of U. S. population per year for the last several years. To house those people the number of units would need to increase at that rate. They are not.
That doesn’t even include the reality that the trend has been to reduce the number of what are blithely referred to as “affordable housing” with much more expensive housing units. To accommodate the present rate of migration we would need to reverse that trend and build millions of unit affordable to the people who are moving here. That would cost billions, possibly trillions.
Consequently, accepting the number of migrants we have been is unrealistic.
Nice spin attempt Dave. It also provided money for expanding the detention camps so there would be fewer getaways. It provided more funding for more border patrol efforts. It provided money for more judges, which I thought you agreed with before spinning this. It also tightened the rules on what was acceptable for asylum.
So right now there is no limit on how many asylum people can enter. While I understand that people on the right, and you, are going to claim you dont need a new law there are a lot of legal experts who disagree. So this law would have meant we had the ability in law to do what the right claims they want done and the left said they would do if they had the law in place. It would have cut the numbers of illegals. You can claim you want it lower but you cant claim it wouldn’t have reduced the numbers.
As I have pointed out, I think you used to agree, that having enough judges and court time has great potential. Someone leaves their neighborhood and a couple of months they are back because the court rejected them would seem likely to have a large impact. Lastly, if the bill was passed and the GOP won an election it would have been so easy to just amend the law and set the limit lower.
Steve
I agree with more money for judges. Disagree with money for Israel (which it also included). Agree with more money for Ukraine. Am not convinced about money for Taiwan. I REALLY disagree with bundling all of those into a single bill. At this point I think it is clear that we need a “single matter” constitutional amendment.
I don’t believe that asking the basic question of whether its approach to controlling migration across our southern border is spin. I think that NOT asking it is spin.
I think that’s a non sequitur. The “getaways” have gotten away. They have not gotten away because there is no room for them in the detention camps. The detention camps are irrelevant to them. They have been sighted but not detained. That’s the definition of “getaway” that they are using. There is also an unknown number of individuals who are entering the country illegally without having been sighted.
Name one. Do those same experts believe that the draft law could actually bind the president? How? If they are silent on that fundamental question, find one that believes that a law is necessary to control migration AND can be effective. I speculate that any “expert” who takes the position that a law is necessary is doing so BECAUSE they do not believe that any law short of a constitutional amendment can be effective.
Dave Schuler: The “getaways” have gotten away.
It actually refers to parolees. Someone who applies for asylum has to be given a hearing. Currently, asylum applications far exceed the ability of the system to process them. People have to wait years. That means they have to be paroled with the opportunity to work until their cases are heard. The system is broken.
By holding and processing asylum applications more rapidly and making the requirements more stringent, it’s possible to allow for valid asylum claims while quickly expelling those who don’t qualify.
Dave Schuler: I REALLY disagree with bundling all of those into a single bill. At this point I think it is clear that we need a “single matter” constitutional amendment.
That won’t solve the problem of congressional dysfunction. Horse trading is an intrinsic part of the process, but that is actually where the system has broken down.
That is untrue. It means those known to have entered illegally but avoided apprehension.
IMO the source of “congressional dysfunction” is the increasing polarization of the Congress. Republicans are MORE conservative than used to be the case; Democrats are MORE progressive; the number of centrists and moderates has declined sharply. Compromise is reached by centrists and moderates not ideologues.
My preference for single matter legislation is not to end “congressional dysfunction” during deliberations by Congress but at the ballot box. They make it harder for representatives and senators out-of-step with their constituencies to hide behind 1,000 page omnibus bills.
Dave Schuler: It means those known to have entered illegally but avoided apprehension.
Oh, gee whiz. “It also provided money for expanding the detention camps” for those who applied at official border crossings or those who were otherwise detained at the border.
Being able to detain more people while quickly processing claims means fewer parolees; and, because of more stringent requirements for initial asylum applications, fewer parolees overall. Finally, this will reduce incentives for migrants to make the expensive and dangerous journey.
Dave Schuler: IMO the source of “congressional dysfunction” is the increasing polarization of the Congress.
That’s right. No one horse trades because it would mean doing business with the “enemy”.
Repeat: in English language usage “gotaways” does not mean “parolees”. See my link above. That’s how Homeland Security uses the term. It does mean those who did not present themselves to officials at the border, were observed, but not detained.
Total migrants =
those here legally under various visas
+ “asylum seekers” who presented themselves at the border and claimed asylum
+ “gotaways”
+ those not observed entering illegally but did enter
The total number is unworkable and so unconstitutional under the standard first articulated (I think) by Jefferson—the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Dave Schuler: Repeat: in English language usage “gotaways” does not mean “parolees”.
Gee double-whiz. steve’s statement (quoted in part in our previous statement) should say: “It also provided money for expanding the detention camps
so there would be fewer getaways” for those who applied at official border crossings or those who were otherwise detained at the border. Larger detention capacity means fewer parolees.The reason the current system is unworkable is because when people apply for asylum, they have the right to a hearing, even if they have a tenuous case. Increasing requirements for the initial screening and providing additional judges will mean most applicants will have their cases quickly denied, and then the applicant will be expelled.
{several edits in the hope that we don’t continue to talk past one another}
The linkage between the issues was due to the politics of the issues.
Ukraine is what makes the bill “must pass” or close to “must pass”. Taiwan while tense, is not in active hostilities; Israel is in hostilities, but has $200 billion in reserves so they don’t need cash; their needs are diplomatic support and access to US weapons (which they can pay for). The border isn’t must pass to Democrats as we are seeing.
Its the politics of Ukraine aid that meant the White House and Congressional Democrats need to tie other things into it. Ukraine aid is intensely unpopular with Republican voters. An Ukraine aid bill would barely pass the House with Democrats providing the vast majority of votes in support along with a few Republicans while 90% of Republicans vote against. We decry Hastert for saying he would only put bills on the floor that had the support of the majority of the majority — but its altogether different to put on the floor something that 90% of the caucus opposes. And this is where McCarthy’s defenestration comes in; Johnson can see what happens if he angers any part of this caucus, never mind 90% of it.
Not to mention a Ukraine only aid bill would invariably impose tougher conditions that the aid is not diverted to corruption…. and if the US imposed meaningful conditions, likely it ends up with a corruption scandal in months or the aid doesn’t get to the frontline at all.
So they tied it up with Israeli aid, to get more Republican support, and then added Taiwan to get China hawks. I think the border was a sop to the Congressional Republican leadership. The mess up was the Senate Republicans leadership negotiated far too timidly.
Now we will find out if a Ukraine / Israel / Taiwan aid bill can pass.
Mexican and Central American invaders are unconcerned with housing prices, they will live 12 in a single bedroom apartment and will work without papers at whatever is available until they have enough money to buy a kilo, then begin distributing.
Weapons are easily available on the street and the dealers are all young men who are overconfident about their futures.
The invading women and children are of no concern as the American welfare system is required to protect them and provide for their health care.
Here in Nebraska, easily 3/4th’s of the dealers arrested, meth, fentanyl, guns, cash, have Hispanic surnames.
If anyone wants to call me a racist for noting this, Stick your uninformed white opinion where the sun doesn’t shine.
You are ignorant.
which is exactly as it should be.
Can cite sources from legal blogs if you want but from CBS which I dont think has reason to take much of a side on this.
“Did Trump try to “shut down” asylum claims at the border?
Yes, and his efforts were struck down in federal court.
Trump tried to single-handedly suspend asylum in between ports of entry along the southern border through a proclamation in 2018, using a law House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republicans have urged Mr. Biden to invoke.
While the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use this law — known as Section 212(f) — to enact restrictions and bans on legal immigration and travel, such as the infamous “travel bans,” federal courts prevented the government from citing this authority to suspend asylum law. Trump’s 2018 rule was ultimately declared unlawful.”
So if this law had passed when the magic number hit asylum seekers couldn’t even apply for asylum. They have to go back to Mexico and the back up in asylum cases slows. Again, this is what Trump tried to do but the courts disallowed it. We need actual laws to clarify and simplify this stuff. Note that Mexico actually has to agree to take people back and with this law you could refuse them entry to begin with so going back would not be an issue.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-asks-mexico-help-stop-record-surge-migrants-rcna132711
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-biden-border-authority/
Steve
From steve’s CBS link:
“Mr. Biden has the legal authority to reinstate the border policies implemented by former President Donald Trump that he ended, since they were based on proclamations, regulations and international agreements.”
The housing stock in developed cities like Chicago, New York or San Francisco is irrelevant to the issue of housing immigrants. New housing should be, and actually is, being built on undeveloped land, like farmland. Immigrant housing “crisis” in places like Chicago is pure political theater. It is really an abuse and exploitation of the migrants for selfish political reasons.
PD Shaw (quoting): “Mr. Biden has the legal authority to reinstate the border policies implemented by former President Donald Trump that he ended, since they were based on proclamations, regulations and international agreements.”
Mexico is currently refusing to accept returns under a new Remain in Mexico policy. (It also leaves migrants in dangerous conditions.) Asylum restrictions have already been implemented within the confines of current law. Lack of resources limits the implementation of the Lawful Pathways Rule. Simply shutting down the border is not allowed under current law.
There is not a lot of farmland in Chicago. The vacant land designated for a tent city was refused state funding because it was contaminated (former zinc smelter and railyard). These are the kind of properties cities come into ownership of because of tax seizures. There is also no budget for 35,000 immigrants. It will be a major issue for this year’s budget cuts at the state and local level.
PD- Mexico needs to agree. If this bill was passed there wouldn’t need to be an issue of return as they wouldn’t be allowed in to even request asylum when th limit was reached.
The CRS has a nice piece on this. As I read it there is discretion on how you use expedited removal with Trump maximizing it and Biden not doing so. However, even with expedited removal they need to be held in detention for a while and they have a route for appeals. So if you are going to follow the law you need adequate detention space to do that. Note that this bill would have increased detention space AND increased the number of judges. There would have been less, maybe no, need to release people on parole due to camps being overcrowded.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11357#:~:text=INA%20§%20235(b)(1)%20instructs%20that%20the%20examining,fear”%20of%20persecution%20or%20torture.
Steve
“The Biden administration is considering executive action to deter illegal migration at the southern border” (Feb. 7, 2024)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-administration-weighs-executive-action-border-migrants-rcna137804?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65c43b4e8b17820001a58e0a&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Trump had the ability to enact a Remain in Mexico policy, but Biden doesn’t.
With the bill in place they could pay for more judges and have increased detention space. I dont think they can do that with executive orders. Mexico has set limits on how many people we can send back which they did not do, to the best of my memory, when Trump was in office.
Steve
“I REALLY disagree with bundling all of those into a single bill.”
The most important point, and decisive.
Steve and zach – LOL in general
Steve – CBS. Seriously? LOL