Biden Executive Orders on Southern Border: Read Them For Yourself
TPS: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
As speculated, President Joe Biden has taken executive action aimed at the southern border, drawing skepticism and pushback from both sides of the political aisle.
President Biden issued new measures Tuesday that will block migrants’ access to the U.S. asylum system when illegal border crossings are high, a move aimed at shoring up one of his biggest vulnerabilities to reelection in November.
Biden is using executive authorities to impose the broad restrictions as long as illegal entries remain above an average of 2,500 per day, senior administration officials told reporters in advance of the president’s planned remarks at the White House Tuesday afternoon.
“President Biden will announce executive actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum,” said one of the senior officials.
The administration will send migrants deemed ineligible to their home countries or Mexico unless they express a convincing fear of persecution that would qualify them for an exemption under stringent screening procedures, the officials said.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House, said the president’s measures were made necessary by the repeated failure of a bipartisan bill this year that would have combined the asylum cap with billions of dollars in additional funding for immigration enforcement.
Republicans voted against the bill as recently as last month after opposition from former president and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and concerns that it would hurt him in an election year.
The American Civil Liberties Union immediately said it will challenge the Biden measures in court. The organization has led lawsuits against attempts to restrict asylum under Biden and Trump.
“We intend to sue,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in a statement Tuesday minutes after the White House announced the policy. “An asylum ban was illegal under Trump and is just as illegal now.”
The restrictions drew a mix of remarks from Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
Read the White House “Facts Sheet” on the executive actions for yourself here:
The Biden-Harris Administration’s executive actions will:
Bar Migrants Who Cross the Southern Border Unlawfully From Receiving Asylum
President Biden issued a proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the Southern border into the United States unlawfully. This proclamation is accompanied by an interim final rule from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that restricts asylum for those noncitizens.
These actions will be in effect when the Southern border is overwhelmed, and they will make it easier for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.
These actions are not permanent. They will be discontinued when the number of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry is low enough for America’s system to safely and effectively manage border operations. These actions also include similar humanitarian exceptions to those included in the bipartisan border agreement announced in the Senate, including those for unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking.
Recent Actions to secure our border and address our broken immigration system:Strengthening the Asylum Screening Process
The Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule to ensure that migrants who pose a public safety or national security risk are removed as quickly in the process as possible rather than remaining in prolonged, costly detention prior to removal. This proposed rule will enhance security and deliver more timely consequences for those who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States.
Announced new actions to more quickly resolve immigration casesThe Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security launched a Recent Arrivals docket to more quickly resolve a portion of immigration cases for migrants who attempt to cross between ports of entry at the Southern border in violation of our immigration laws.
Through this process, the Department of Justice will be able to hear these cases more quickly and the Department of Homeland Security will be able to more quickly remove individuals who do not have a legal basis to remain in the United States and grant protection to those with valid claims.
The bipartisan border agreement would have created and supported an even more efficient framework for issuing final decisions to all asylum seekers. This new process to reform our overwhelmed immigration system can only be created and funded by Congress.
Revoked visas of CEOs and government officials who profit from migrants coming to the U.S. unlawfullyThe Department of State imposed visa restrictions on executives of several Colombian transportation companies who profit from smuggling migrants by sea. This action cracks down on companies that help facilitate unlawful entry into the United States, and sends a clear message that no one should profit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.
The State Department also imposed visa restrictions on over 250 members of the Nicaraguan government, non-governmental actors, and their immediate family members for their roles in supporting the Ortega-Murillo regime, which is selling transit visas to migrants from within and beyond the Western Hemisphere who ultimately make their way to the Southern border.
Previously, the State Department revoked visas of executives of charter airlines for similar actions.Expanded Efforts to Dismantle Human Smuggling and Support Immigration Prosecutions
The Departments of State and Justice launched an “Anti-Smuggling Rewards” initiative designed to dismantle the leadership of human smuggling organizations that bring migrants through Central America and across the Southern U.S. border. The initiative will offer financial rewards for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, or conviction of those most responsible for significant human smuggling activities in the region.
The Department of Justice will seek new and increased penalties against human smugglers to properly account for the severity of their criminal conduct and the human misery that it causes.
The Department of Justice is also partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to direct additional prosecutors and support staff to increase immigration-related prosecutions in crucial border U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Efforts include deploying additional DHS Special Assistant United States Attorneys to different U.S. Attorneys’ offices, assigning support staff to critical U.S. Attorneys’ offices, including DOJ Attorneys to serve details in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in several border districts, and partnering with federal agencies to identify additional resources to target these crimes.
Enhancing Immigration EnforcementThe Department of Homeland Security has surged agents to the Southern border and is referring a record number of people into expedited removal.
The Department of Homeland Security is operating more repatriation flights per week than ever before. Over the past year, DHS has removed or returned more than 750,000 people, more than in every fiscal year since 2010.
Working closely with partners throughout the region, the Biden-Harris Administration is identifying and collaborating on enforcement efforts designed to stop irregular migration before migrants reach our Southern border, expand investment and integration opportunities in the region to support those who may otherwise seek to migrate, and increase lawful pathways for migrants as an alternative to irregular migration.
Seizing Fentanyl at our Border
Border officials have seized more fentanyl at ports of entry in the last two years than the past five years combined, and the President has added 40 drug detection machines across points of entry to disrupt the fentanyl smuggling into the Homeland. The bipartisan border agreement would fund the installation of 100 additional cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect fentanyl at our Southern border ports of entry.
In close partnership with the Government of Mexico, the Department of Justice has extradited Nestor Isidro Perez Salaz, known as “El Nini,” from Mexico to the United States to face prosecution for his role in illicit fentanyl trafficking and human rights abuses. This is one of many examples of joint efforts with Mexico to tackle the fentanyl and synthetic drug epidemic that is killing so many people in our countries and globally, and to hold the drug trafficking organizations to account.
Oh look, Democrats trying to out Republican Republicans on immigration. How cute. How disgustingly immorally cute. Leftist socialists my a$$Report
This is an area where the world is generally pretty hard right. No country is going to want to give up this particular area of sovereignty.Report
No one is asking the US to. I’d just be happy with policy made from a realistic assessment of ALL the issues, not just the need to look most hardline in vain pursuit of voters who won’t move on the issue.Report
I don’t think this is a vain pursuit of voters who won’t move on the issue. I think there are plenty of people who find Trump plenty gross but also believe that the border is out of control and thing need to be made clear about just showing up. The “give me your tired and poor” crowd is the minority on this.Report
I’m not sure which constituency is less popular with the masses- genuine libertarians or genuine open borders enthusiasts. I’d guess the latter.Report
Operating an effective, reality based immigration system doesn’t require open borders. More resources, and a willingness to acknowledge the economic reasons why so many come here, but there can still be controls.Report
What you’re talking about would require that Congress get involved- which it refuses to do. So, Biden’s throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Considering we agree that the overwhelming majority of the migrants at the border are coming for economic reasons I don’t see any particularly “disgusting immorality” in Bidens’ rule changes (though I have doubts the courts’ll let him implement them).
Your job doesn’t depend on meeting the voters somewhere near where they are but Bidens’ is. I am cosigning Saul’s comment below.Report
Biden also made it easier for tens of thousands of Afghanis, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and others to get paroled into the United States. My feeling is that Biden believes the optics of people just showing up to the border is bad politics.Report
I think your feeling is right on what Biden thinks and I think Bidens’ belief is right when it comes to the politics. I’m firmly in the Yglesias one billion Americans camp but I think that anyone who tries to ignore the politics of the issue is setting themselves and the country up for disaster.Report
I don’t think there is anything wrong with coming to a country for economic reasons and I dispute the idea that most immigrants from Central and South America are coming for “economic reasons.”
That being said, I think a lot of lefties and liberals make categorical mistakes on the mark-up of the Democratic Party. IIRC, there are a lot of studies which show white (maybe Asian too), upper-middle class, bougie-bohos with college/advanced educations on the left most edges of the Democratic Party in terms of social and economic policy. The “In this house” voters basically. Almost no one wants this fact to be true for reasons I have never been able to fully ascertain including a lot of “in this house” voters.
But SF is Sapphire Blue and it is liberal but the median SF voter is not an In This House white or Asian liberal in one of the most fashionable neighborhoods of the city. The median SF Democratic voter is probably a resident of a less fashionable part of the city like the Outer Richmond, Outer Sunset, Parkside, or the borderlands around SF State and the Zoo, is a naturalized Asian immigrant or first or second gen citizen and works in a less than fashionable but solid field. I.e. more local accountant than tech worker.
But these facts seem to drive everyone batty and people want social conservatism in the Democratic Party to be driven by “white moderates” They don’t want an NPR-listening tote-bag loving middle-aged woman to be the leading liberals of the Party.
That being said, my guess is that Biden’s announcement is mainly targeted at the median Democrat (aka someone who doesn’t read political blogs) and low-info conservativish voters who are turned off by Trump and supports abortion rights but might think Abbott has some ideas on the borderReport
People don’t want to admit that the bougie “in this house” set represents the left most edge of the Democratic Party because that isn’t a majority of the American population, showing grim prospects for liberal legislation. They also don’t want to admit this because it defeats their romantic imagery of a Radical Non-White Alliance bringing change to the United States.Report
You’re both making that same mistake right now, though. You’re talking about whether “people” want to admit that, but you’re really talking about whether “in this house” people want to admit that.Report
I think all three of you are right in this thread which is quite a calendar day considering one of you is Pinky!Report
Biden’s job is to also move voters where they need to be. And where they need to be is that 15 million or so undocumented migrants in our economy are integral to our current success. Where they need to be is more are coming, and our system is not ready to handle them. Where they need to be is America has to get over its xenophobia if we want to succeed as a nation.
This accomplished none of that leadership, and makes it look like being more conservative and hardline is a good thing. Its not, and this will alienate even the “in this house” crowd – perhaps more then the Gaza thing will.Report
As Lee, Saul and Pink note above, the “In this house” crowd are the last people anyone, least of all Biden, should be worrying about. The actual voters are way to your right on this and I think you’re mistaken in thinking Biden has the power to move them on this. In a normal election this would be an interesting political science question but in this, 2024 election, caviling about it is an incredible act of purity indulgence when you consider the polls and who the alternative will be if Biden stakes out what you’d consider a morally pure position and the voters, in turn, fire him and elect his opponent.Report
One of the things that frustrates me about a lot of online political discourse is the number of people who seem to believe in Green Lanternism/the Bully Pulpit. I guess I can’t blame them because pundits and PBS documentaries love to prattle on too much about the Bully Pulpit and TR or the Johnson Treatment but it is far less useful than many people seem to imagine.
On the other hand, I suspect a lot of “(insert Democratic Politician here) didn’t even try” complaints comes from the kind of “leftist” always looking for an excuse to note vote Democratic. If it wasn’t I/P, it would be immigration, if it wasn’t I/P or immigration, it would be student loans, or something Biden said that was corny.Report
I don’t think you have to believe in the green lantern or whatever to understand that this election will likely turn on a point or two in ~6 states. Reassuring a small number of people on the fence in those places outweighs upsetting lots and lots of committed blue voters. The nothing anyone does matters school of thought is far more baffling and destructive.Report
You would think so but it apparently is not true.
Another issue is that the Democratic Party and/or left in general is not as united as the GOP and/or right. Ask 10 different Democrats and/or lefties to list their top 5 issues/causes and you might not get ten different answers, but you will at least get four to seven different answers.
This results in people thinking their top concerns are more important to other Democrats than they really are. The obvious and flame throwing fight here is Israel/Palestine. Politically, most people do not vote on foreign policy. But there is a small and very passionate crowd of liberals who are really disappointed by Biden’s handling of I/P by trying to show support for Israel (which I think is sincere) but curtailing the worst impulses of Bibi’s ultra right-wing cabinet. Said group is going to vote for Biden but also likes the Protestors. Somehow this causes a weird tick where they want the Protests to have more of an impact on Biden’s reelection stances than they will in reality probably.Report
Please provide me a link to a clip of ANY democratic politician (still in office) in the last 5 years talking about the ECONOMIC need to keep undocumented migrants in the US what with their critical to our economy status. Perhaps I have missed it, but Democrats willingness to throw this in Republicans face as harmful to the US is sorely lacking.Report
Do you seriously believe I’d reject Joe Biden over this?
Wow. Just Wow.Report
I didn’t say you would. Though it would not be astonishing if a person with your ideals did.Report
Bully Pulpit fallacy, Bully Pulpit fallacy on Aisle 11. Will somebody please clean up.Report
Hell, I believe in open borders and think it is political suicide. Though my opinion is also that a certain kind of personality exists to be disappointed in politics.Report
I am giving a world-weary nod.Report
I am as pretty close to an open borders person as possible I think but I think arguing for such a position, or perhaps even much more liberal immigration policies, is political suicide all over the world now. The U.S./Democrats are generally to the left on this issue including when compared to many/most of the socially democratic governments/parties of Northern/Western Europe that chronically online lefties love so much.
It is only going to get worse as climate change and other issues lead to more things like massive crop failure in the Southern Hemisphere and civil society in parts of the world collapses.
I’m not a fan of the decision on moral/ethical grounds but I understand the “political” reasons it was made.Report
There’s about a thousand yards of daylight between this and open borders. Cause when the climate crisis really really ramps up this will look like a cake walk.Report
Biden is doing the right thing here. Only criticism I’d offer is that he didn’t do it as soon as the GOP rejected the legislative deal that was on the table a few months ago. He probably should have tried it even before that.Report
My own tea leaf reading is that Biden and his crew were waiting to see if the legislative deal rejection would be, by itself, enough to relegate the issue this cycle. Unfortunately, it clearly isn’t the case.Report
Given the issue I’d have some serious questions for those that thought it might go away. But whatever. Better late than never, and good to have it as a talking point before the debate in a few weeks, assuming it actually happens.Report
It wasn’t an insane notion: the GOP basically held up everything screaming for a deal on the border, then Biden gave them a deal on the border and they abruptly about faced and rejected it. That the voters might interpret that as Republican hypocrisy and disengage on the subject was possible. But immigration sentiment isn’t that weak unfortunately and the Dems very will likely need to actually make acting on it a priority the next time they achieve a trifecta as much as they don’t want to.Report
Why is it the right thing to do?Report
Because the interest in defeating Donald Trump greatly outweighs the interests of foreign nationals getting into the country illegally. It’s not even remotely close which is more important. And this issue polls close to as badly for Democrats as abortion does for Republicans.Report
Yeah yeah yeah, does it really though?
Obviously in this case we’re talking about the interest of foreign nationals being able to emigrate to America, and it’s hard to say that is hugely compelling except for the most diehard of immigration libs.
But in general though, this sort of argument is being used to justify a lot of things that don’t necessarily hold up. I’d like to see Trump gone too. But the idea that that is supposed to outweigh any other topical consideration of the day, some combination of them, doesn’t at all follow.
What’s worse, for me at least, is that for those who do believe that, are typically arguing from a very niche frame of reference that other Americans are very likely not to share.
In the end, you don’t see much credible discussion of what a second Trump term would look like, because you can’t get past all the sputtering.Report
I made the argument about immigration. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask me to answer for every possible variation of ‘defeating Trump is more important than x’ where x can stand for anything.Report
Between his many recent interviews on conservative media and Project 2025 we know well what a second Trump term will look like. Full of revenge and deeply authoritarian. And that does in fact justify going hard when and where possible at all turns, since Democrats once again have to save Republicans from themselves.
Sigh.Report
Are you talking morally or politically?
Morally it is probably not the “right” thing to do.
Politically, there are probably enough low-info voters in key swing states who are concerned about the border (perhaps and probably erroneously) that can be convinced to vote against Trump and the GOP because of abortion and what not and because Trump is a convicted felon but might think that Abbot guy has the right ideas on the border.
It sucks but this is the world we live in.Report
I was trying to suss out that very thing.
I agree that defeating Trump is paramount and whatever means, fair or foul, are warranted.
This is probably smart politics. Part of smart politics is maintaining a leftward boundary so that this realpolitik doesn’t become the leftward edge, but a compromise.
So I think its incumbent upon us liberals to complain loud and long because honestly, if it were not for the need to compromise we wouldn’t support this from anyone.Report
I think immigration is one area where the global standard is hard right. America is better than most rhetorically but that isn’t saying much.Report
It’s just like banning abortion.
Morally, it’s the right thing to do, according to some.
Politically, it’s a mistake, according to others.Report
I think that’s unfair. My read is that at minimum the plurality of the Democratic coalition and quite possibly even an actual majority still would be fine with something in spitting distance of the same kind of boring wonky compromises they’ve been open to for 20 years. The party thought leaders have misread the public in some stupid ways, and maybe become too beholden to elite activism, but they aren’t in nearly the same straight jacket the Republicans are an abortion. Just 4 months ago they were prepared to deliver votes on a totally conservative non-compromise on immigration in favor of other priorities. What could you picture the Republicans enacting a federal law legalizing abortion nationally up to 15 weeks in exchange for? I think that’s a fair comp and I am not sure they’re able to do anything like that.Report
I’m pretty sure that a plurality of the Republican coalition would be okay with up to 15 weeks.
It’s just that there are also people who care more about principle than pragmatics and they *REALLY* care about it.
“Well, they should read Thucydides.”
“Yes. I agree.”Report
I don’t see the parallel. We may all deeply suspect that if the GOP could make the abortion issue go away with something like that a significant portion would, but they can’t. That’s not the same as having the votes lined up, president ready to sign like the Democrats just were with immigration. The only reason it didn’t happen is because the Republicans decided Donald Trump was more important than a massive policy win.Report
Given that so much as 10% of the immigrants so far are unlikely to be deported, the policy loss is already baked into the cake… if Biden wins.
I suppose we have the skeleton for a couple of essays right here.
I remember in 2016, there was an essay scheduled for the day after the election talking about “Jeez louise, Clinton won. Was it ever in doubt? Here’s what all of the willfully blind Trump boosters failed to take into account…”
Sadly, the essay was taken down.
We could both write an essay, right now, explaining why (candidate) won and why it shouldn’t have been in doubt. We’ve got a list of reasons right now.Report
Entertaining but non sequitur.Report
Then allow me to rephrase. The gains/losses that would come to Republicans/Democrats as a result of the undocumented visitors is already going to happen. The worst is done. Making a deal would not have changed the material reality of the amount of undocumented visitors already here (within about 10%) and wouldn’t have done a whole lot to prevent future ones (for example, there are a non-zero number of loopholes including the whole “ACLU will get rid of this one just like the last one” loophole).
The “harm” done by the undocumented visitors, if you want to call it that, involve the changing of the various local cultures as well as the future voting habits of those who stay and the descendants of those who will have stayed.
Republicans wouldn’t have picked up a single vote from making a deal… but they could have forced Democrats to lose votes by not making one. In the short term, anyway.
The long term? What’s the long term?
Which brings me to my non-sequitur.
Write the “Was it ever in doubt?” essay for if Trump wins in your head real quick. Just list out the top three reasons that everybody knew he’d win.
Is Undocumented Visiting on the list? It is on mine.Report
I get the cynical logic of the move in terms of Trump’s prospects in the election. But you’re way off if you think the legislation wouldn’t have changed anything. The reforms to asylum alone would have been very significant. It also isn’t an opportunity that comes around every day. Remember Trump passed 0 legislation on immigration when he had a trifecta. Anyway if that’s what the Republicans are thinking it sounds to me like some serious cope.Report
The reforms to asylum alone would have been very significant.
This assumes that they would have stood/been enforced.
The fact that there is a principal/agent problem underscores a *LOT* of the mistrust against the Republicans. It’s why Trump is seen as more trustworthy than Romney.
“But it makes no sense to see Trump as more trustworthy than Romney!”, you may think “Romney is a *DECENT MAN*!”, you may point out.
The Trumpers think that Romney has been captured.
And the Democrats explaining how decent Romney are easily smeared with the statements made by prominent politicos who were just playing the whole “politics ain’t beanbag” game against him a little over a decade ago.Report
I think this is way too meta. Yes, it always possible that the courts will hold a statute unconstitutional or interpret it in such a way as to have less impact that the drafters intended, but the argument you’re making here is an argument against ever passing any laws at all. That doesn’t hold up as the vast, vast majority of laws operate more or less as intended without any sort of abridgment by the courts, and there’s very little reason to believe a federal judiciary dominated by conservatives would find a reason not to apply a duly enacted statute tightening the way asylum claims are adjudicated.Report
In this case, it’s stuff that has already demonstrated to have not stood up in court and that’s propped up alongside a border patrol that has demonstrably failed to enforce the law.
It’s not a hypothetical.Report
When you say didn’t hold up do you mean the Trump era EOs? We can certainly have a discussion about those. But a significant part of the reason that happened are the well known limits of what EOs can do in our system of government. While I know asking Trump to understand the basics of how the system works is a tall order, it isn’t a very convincing excuse for failure.
I also think you’re mischaracterizing what’s going on with the border patrol. They’re failing because of lack of resources, not because they’re all secret lovers of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. Those resource boosts were also part of the package that the GOP just rejected. They can’t have it both ways.Report
My argument is not that they’re all secret lovers of illegal immigrants.
It’s that they’re failing to do their job with the resources that they had then. Remember the flap over the border patrol cutting down the razor wire in Texas?
Good times.Report
(Note: Found the comment thread I was looking for. Check it out. Was that only in January? Wild.)Report
I’m not seeing the dissonance. At least not in anything I said.
I also am still not seeing how disagreement with current law/enforcement somehow becomes a convincing argument for not changing the law/enforcement practices when given an opportunity in the very organ of government with the authority to do it. What’s the logic I am missing?Report
My argument was that Border Patrol failed to enforce the law and the counter-argument included this: “They’re failing because of lack of resources, not because they’re all secret lovers of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration.”
My argument was not that they’re all secret lovers of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration.
It’s that their focus was *NOT* on protecting the border.Report
Given the Border Patrol’s open and public disdain for Biden’s border policies – they want to do more locking up then they are capable of at the moment – what do you think their focus is?Report
Well, in the case that I was discussing, the focus seemed to be on cutting down Abbott’s razor wire.Report
Because he was illegally preempting federal authority. They had to waste federal resources to do that by the way.Report
The odd thing was that that doesn’t seem to be what the court ruled. The court seemed to rule that Abbott didn’t have the authority to prevent them taking down the razor wire… but not that Abbott didn’t have the authority to put it up in the first place.
It walked a tightrope.
But I’m pleased that you agree that the limited federal resources saw that as the priority.Report
So Greg Abbott lost in a clear cut case of federal authority pre-empting state and your conclusion is that the border patrol is intentionally failing to do their job? And failing to such a level that all federal legislative action and allocation of resources is of no impact or effect? Maybe I am missing the point where you think the GOP at the federal level has an obligation to actually put its money where it’s mouth is. Right now what you’re saying sounds like an incredible leap, all to justify inaction of the exact kind that would matter most.
I also have a really hard time believing that if Abbott gets to leave the barb wire up suddenly the votes materialize in Congress. Am I wrong about that?Report
I’m not sure that he lost? (That’s why I included the comment thread.)
I suppose we could call it a “tie”…
I also have a really hard time believing that if Abbott gets to leave the barb wire up suddenly the votes materialize in Congress. Am I wrong about that?
I believe that the case was decided narrowly enough to allow Abbott to keep putting up the wire and the border patrol to keep taking it down.
It wasn’t that Abbott was illegally putting it up, it’s that he didn’t have the authority to stop the border patrol from taking it down.
And that turned into a compact of 25 states siding with Abbott.
And then the story… poof. Evaporated instead of the federal government sending people down there to deal with this active disobedience. (Seriously! Re-read the comments!)Report
I’m re-reading them and the main dissent from my perspective I am seeing is that maybe the deal wasn’t as good as reported. Which, I suppose I can’t disprove but neither has anyone since (as far as I know anyway) proven. Note I also said down at the end that I think the Biden admin should take whatever executive action it thinks it can get away with, which I assume this is.
I also still think this sounds like a lot of contortion to relieve the GOP of any responsibility and place maximum responsibility on the Democrats. I mean, for people who really think something needs to be done (of which I am one), what are we to make of the fact that from 2017-2018 the GOP had a mandate to put a barrier across the southern border, and a trifecta to do it. Call that barrier a wall. And yet they didn’t do it. If these barriers are really the way to solve the problem (a dubious assertion IMO but whatever) why is it that they didn’t do it when they had the power? Is that also the Democrats fault?Report
Well, what *I* would argue is that the Republican politicans are captured.
Big business loves undocumented workers too much, consumers love the prices of businesses that hire undocumented workers too much, and they really love that businesses that don’t hire undocumented workers have to compete with businesses that do.
Libertarian types argue for openish-borders on some vague principle thing.
The people who care the most about undocumented visitors are hoi polloi, they don’t donate, they don’t show up for primaries (though they’ve started to) and all they do is vote.
There is a disconnect between the politicians and hoi polloi.
It’d be easier if we could just replace them.Report
Agreed – it would be lovely if we could replace the politicians with ones who are not captured. But here we are.Report
I think he was (ironically) referring to the hoi polloi, not the politicians.Report
I do enjoy my dangling modifiers.
But, oddly enough, Trump seems to be differently captured. Certainly on the topic of immigration.Report
I think he is mostly captured by himself. IMO we’ve gotten to a point where the case that he, wittingly or not, tapped into a bunch of actual underlying grievances festering among the forgotten people is more than a little overblown. However I also don’t think he would exist if there wasn’t a little truth to it, and to the fact that there is a widespread albeit hazy, ill-defined (maybe not even totally accurate) sense that America’s political elite is has lost its ability to solve actual problems. Of course that leads to the question of whether Trump can solve actual problems, and so far the evidence that he can is pretty weak.Report
However I also don’t think he would exist if there wasn’t a little truth to it, and to the fact that there is a widespread albeit hazy, ill-defined (maybe not even totally accurate) sense that America’s political elite is has lost its ability to solve actual problems.
One thing that was kind of interesting was when San Francisco cleaned itself up, however temporarily, when Xi visited.
One of the talking points about it was “this is a policy choice”.
Which, sadly, was a talking point that Newsome himself echoed at that one press conference:
Report
I’m well aware he was referring to the hoi polloi. Wrongly so IMHO. Its easier to replace the politicians since there are far fewer of them.Report
This should be OT’s banner. Seriously.Report
What is the constituency for a 15 week ban, presumably with some medical exceptions? Women don’t just decide after 15 weeks of pregnancy that they don’t want to be pregnant anymore. Elective abortions happen earlier. Late term abortions usually involve late breaking problems for women who had gone months expecting to give birth. A 15 week ban would reduce abortions by single digit percentages. It would satisfy no one and accomplish almost nothing. Its only purpose is moderation signaling by people who know they won’t have to put up or shut up.Report
You know the whole polling thing where people point out that 2/3rds of the country supports abortion in the first trimester and 2/3rds of the country opposes abortion in the third trimester?
It used to be split in half and the pro-life side would argue that 2/3rds of the country was pro-life and the pro-choice side would take the other half and argue that, obviously, 2/3rds of the country is pro-choice.
Whenever someone argues that X should be banned and the counter argument comes up that X doesn’t need to be banned because nobody does X in the first place, I always find myself boggling at who has picked up the whole “we can’t trust government to understand laws, let alone citizens/institutions!” talking point.
But I agree that it’s silly to ban something that never happens.
You’d think that there’d be more of a constituency to give up a hill that nobody is on.Report
There is a constituency for sounding moderate without having to be called on it. Advocating a proposal that will satisfy no one, probably won’t be enacted, and will rarely have much effect if it is, hits the trifecta.Report
The point I was making isn’t about that hypothetical law on the merits, it’s about actual differences between the parties in the behavior and freedom to maneuver.Report
I don’t disagree.Report
Yeah, I was struck by that too: You accurately note that the Dems have demonstrated an ability to offer up concessions on policies they care about in exchange for concessions on other policies they care about (also known as politics) bringing up the Biden deal on Immigration as an example and Jay, instead, commented on the various reasons that the GOP had for rejecting said deal. I don’t even think Jay is wrong in his analysis, but it just doesn’t seem exactly pertinent.Report
Put more emphasis on this rather than on that and different things become pertinent.
(I am back to thinking that the Trump vs. Other is not a left v. right kinda conflict. Treating it like one will result in weird outcomes.)Report
Interesting! Do elaborate!Report
The Big Five stuff or the left/right vs elite/populist stuff?Report
Yes!Report
Well, for the Big Five stuff, Nature had an article called “Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle“.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, just scroll down to figure 5 and read this paragraph:
In a nutshell: Liberal/Conservative might reduce to preferred moral allocation.
As for the elite/populist stuff, it’s just a rehash of the Clinton vs. Trump stuff I yammered on about in 2016.
She made it left v. right. He made it populism v. elite. People who interpret the fight as a left v. right one seem to be marching into the same trap as 2016. What’s one of the biggest strikes that the left can give against a Trump supporter? That’s right. “You’re a (far right person)!”
And I’m sure that looking at the serially adulterous New York Democrat and wondering why messes of Evangelicals cheer for him is confusing to anyone who sees it as a left/right thing.
But if you reframe in your head as populist/elite, it suddenly makes sense.
As well as why Biden was able to neutralize much of the populist energy when Clinton wasn’t able to.Report
Do you see the dripping Irony in a millionaire (who claims to be a billionaire) leading a populist campaign right?Report
For the Trumpians possession of money is not, at all, a signifier of elite/vs common stock classification. IIRC the majority of the Trumpers aren’t poor, they’re well-off suburban-rural business owners like car dealers, franchise owners etc… or financially comfortable retirees.Report
That is interesting, thank you. I think I have little to say on first point except that I doubt that the kind of liberalism that gives a lot more moral weight to animals and rocks is strongly represented as voters in the left of center political landscape even if they’re quite voluble and noisy in the echelons of the chattering classes.
On your second point I think there’s something to that which extends beyond simply analyzing the electoral outcomes. Since the Dems still have a bunch of elites who”re in fair to good standing with their voting base they’re capable of doing actual politics. Whereas the GOP, which has an elite that’s basically just the tax cut crowd plus a giant horde of opportunists and grifters, isn’t capable of the same.
How that translates to electoral outcome, though, I’m not so sanguine about. Trump is obviously happiest campaigning as an outsider which he wasn’t able to do from inside the White House in 2020. 2024 potentially returns him to his comfort zone albeit he’s now pretty well defined- no grey space for supporters to project their preferences onto.Report
Josh Blackman’s writeup at Volokh includes the following possible outcome:
I think there is a very good chance this will not hold up no matter how vigorously DOJ defends it. The executive can’t change the law with an EO and can only go so far with aggressive unilateral interpretation before the courts say no.Report
There is always more than a little of political theater in these executive orders. A Democratic President issues an order that is popular but goes against the law and current do-gooder beliefs. The do-gooders sue and the Courts refuse to enforce it because it is against the law. The Democratic President than obeys the orders of the Court. Republicans can use executive orders to change the law more effectively because they are more willing to ignore the Courts when the Courts say no.Report
Part of the reason for the theater is that immigration doesn’t have any solution that anybody actually wants.
Which is why the people who scream the loudest will always find a way to sabotage any proposed solution, even their own.
We’ve seen it over and over.
People who say they are in favor of immigration, just so long as people do it by the rules.
OK so the solution is to change the rules to allow people to more easily comply with the rules.
NOT LIKE THAT!
People who say they want to reduce immigration so as to not undercut domestic wages.
OK the solution for that is to enforce high wages so as to make immigrant labor less attractive.
NOT LIKE THAT!
After enough of this, the preferred solution becomes revealed.Report
Revealed as an active preference for the status quos for a very large majority of the center (Center leftists want it to just go away, center rightists love the captive labor) and tolerance for it on the left (it’s way better than what the right wants) along with burning hatred of the status quos by the actual right (who know the center right/money elite are playing them but can’t do a lot about it except knock the GOP down in this incoherent bonfire of resentment).Report
I also suspect the idea that people should just be able to up and leave their country for another country just like they can move within their own country is just not popular globally. It seems mainly popular as an ideal among the global anywhere class who can do their jobs with a computer and internet connection. Even most migrants probably see the right to immigrate more concretely than abstractly.Report
I think the idea that countries should be like North Korea or East Germany, surrounded with impenetrable walls is just not popular globally.
It seems mainly popular as an ideal among the most extreme authoritarian types.
I’m open to the idea that there is a lot of territory between North Korea and border abolition.Report
When you remember that over the top performative patriotism is how a GOP’er gets elected, it makes sense that a wall would do well in that crowd. As we saw in the numerous stories of hole cut in it and tunnels dug under it, the wall was never about actual deterrence.Report
I don’t know. Many people seem to be moving towards wanting internal passports to be a thing in the United States.Report
If by many people – you mean white “christian” nationalists, sure. Which sort of proves the point that they favor a “Papers, Please” form of government.Report
Nah, plenty of the Baptist faction of the NIMBYs woudl want that as well if would prevent gentrification of their neighborhoods.Report
I generally agree with you and then I meet NIMBYs who seem to think that there should be the American equivalent of inner-passports, possibly even within the same city/metro land
“You are from Irvine? Sorry, you can’t move to Venice/Santa Monica.”Report