Tag: Democrats

Posted on

Immigration and the Democrats

Josh Barro (N.Y. Times), Democrats Blew It on Immigration:

Since the spring, the shine has come off President Trump’s handling of immigration. And yet there has been no apparent surge in voters’ desire to put immigration policy back in the hands of Democrats.

Frankly, Democrats have not earned voters’ trust on immigration — and I say this as a Democrat.

The most recent Democratic administration presided over an enormous surge in migration, with the unauthorized immigrant population exploding to 14 million in 2023 from 10.5 million in 2021 and likely millions more by the time Joe Biden left office, according to the Pew Research Center.

For too long, Mr. Biden and his team asserted they couldn’t stop the surge without new legislation. That proved false: In 2024, having failed to get an immigration bill through Congress, Mr. Biden finally took executive actions to curb abuse of the asylum system and slow the flow of migrants across the southern border. When Mr. Trump took office, illegal border crossings slowed to a trickle. In other words, the problem had been fixable all along; Mr. Biden simply did not fix it until much too late.

As a result, the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States today is considerably different from what it was before Mr. Biden’s presidency. In 2021, over 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants had been living here for at least five years. Now there are millions more recent arrivals without similarly deep links to American communities. Admitting all these new migrants was never an agreed-upon public policy — no voters endorsed this, no law passed by Congress contemplated it and to the extent the migrants are seeking asylum, their legal claims are too often bogus.

But it happened, and Democrats need to explain to voters why they should not expect it to happen again if they regain power. They also need a story about what happens with the millions of people who came here recently, even though they weren’t supposed to.

The longstanding preferred Democratic framework has been comprehensive immigration reform. The idea is that you secure the border, set an intentional and thoughtful immigration policy about who to admit going forward, and give some sort of amnesty to most of the unauthorized immigrants who are already here. Twenty years of legislative efforts to enact this framework failed, even when there was substantial Republican support for it, which is no longer the case. And that was before the composition of the unauthorized immigrant population changed so drastically.

Center-left commentators like Matthew Yglesias and Jerusalem Demsas have been proposing policy ideas that aim to make Democrats’ plans for immigration more appealing to the public. These include refocusing immigration toward higher-skilled migrants, allowing more guest workers on nonimmigrant visas to address inflation-producing labor shortages in industries like hospitality, adding requirements related to assimilation and English-language learning, and even taxing immigrants at higher rates than native-born Americans.

The Center for American Progress has a smart set of proposals to prevent a recurrence of the abuses of the asylum system that prevailed during the Biden administration. The institution’s Neera Tanden and Debu Gandhi propose to prohibit almost all asylum claims from migrants who crossed the southern border illegally, while those who make claims at the border would be held in custody instead of being allowed into the country on a parole basis. Their claims would be adjudicated within 30 days, with rapid removal for those whose claims are rejected. The proposal would also raise the standard of proof for asylum claims and maintain a list of democratic countries whose citizens are presumptively ineligible for asylum.

These sorts of reforms to prevent abuse are necessary to maintain the long-term political viability of the right to claim asylum — though Democrats should also be mindful that the total number of migrants matters, and further restriction could be necessary if too many migrants try to seek asylum under the new system.

The idea is to emphasize that immigration policy must be designed principally for the benefit of American citizens, who stand to gain from the economic and cultural contributions of immigrants so long as immigration is managed appropriately.

This is a good project — but it won’t work without a robust and credible commitment to enforcement, including interior enforcement. That’s because you can make whatever rules you want about who is supposed to immigrate and how, but if you continue to allow millions of people to come live in the United States in contravention of those rules, the immigration situation on the ground will not match what is written in policy.

The mental block that Democrats have here relates to an instinct about deportations: a feeling that it’s presumptively improper to remove an unauthorized immigrant who has settled in our country if that migrant hasn’t committed a crime unrelated to immigration. These people have been here a long time, the idea goes. They’re not causing trouble.

But if we build a system where people very often get to stay here simply because they made it in — the system that prevailed during most of Mr. Biden’s term — then we don’t really have an immigration policy, and voters won’t have any reason to believe us when we say our new policy will produce different results about who comes here.

Liberals also note, accurately, that there are negative economic consequences to a stepped-up program of interior enforcement that doesn’t focus narrowly on criminals. Unauthorized immigrants play an important role in our work force, especially in agriculture and construction. More deportations will make it more expensive to grow fruits and vegetables and reduce the number of housing units we can add. (On the other hand, it will also reduce demand for housing.) But these near-term economic costs need to be weighed against the way that stepped-up interior enforcement makes any future immigration policy more credible and more effective by sending migrants the message that they need a valid visa to stay in the United States.

The need to make a credible enforcement threat does not require Democrats to endorse specific enforcement practices of the Trump administration, like having ICE officers cover their faces during raids or pursue a goal of 3,000 detentions per day. Democrats are right to highlight and criticize the way that indiscriminate raids can sweep up U.S. citizens and to call for a more effectively targeted approach. But that more targeted approach still needs to contemplate that being in the country without authorization is reason enough to deport someone.

There is a political risk for Democrats in Mr. Trump’s softer poll numbers on immigration. Earlier in the year, when his immigration stances were clearly a political asset, Democrats looked for ways to moderate their image on immigration and show a willingness to get tough on enforcement; for example, many moderate Democrats in Congress voted for the Laken Riley Act (which directs the authorities to detain and deport immigrants who are charged or admit to — but are not yet convicted of — specific crimes, if they are in the country illegally).

But now that more Americans disapprove than approve of his approach to immigration, Democrats have often reverted toward centering the concerns of noncitizens — which is to say, nonvoters. The fact that voters increasingly see Mr. Trump’s approach to immigration as too harsh is not enough to turn the issue into an asset for Democrats. A late-July poll for The Wall Street Journalshows the problem for Democrats. It found respondents narrowly disapproving of the president’s handling of the issue — and yet it also showed that voters would not rather see immigration policy in the hands of Democrats. Only 28 percent said that they trust Democrats in Congress to handle immigration policy more than they trust Republicans, while 45 percent say they trust Republicans more than Democrats (the split was slightly wider on the question of illegal immigration).

If we force voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s overly harsh approach and our overly permissive one, we will continue to lose on the issue.

Most voters say immigration provides net benefits to the country, but they also want rules to be enforced. We need to echo both of those sentiments.

Posted on

From David Ignatius’ Lips to God’s Ears

David Ignatius (Washington Post), Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here: To fight Trump’s excesses on immigration, Democrats need to show they are credible on the issue:

Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice. The latest chapter — in which violent protesters could be helping President Donald Trump create a military confrontation he’s almost begging for as a distraction from his other problems — may prove the most dangerous yet.

When I see activists carrying Mexican flags as they challenge ICE raids in Los Angeles this week, I think of two possibilities: These “protesters” are deliberately working to create visuals that will help Trump, or they are well-meaning but unwise dissenters who are inadvertently accomplishing the same goal.

Democrats’ mistake, over more than a decade, has been to behave as though border enforcement doesn’t matter. Pressured by immigrant rights activists, party leaders too often acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong. Again and again, the short-term political interests of Democratic leaders in responding to a strong faction within the party won out over having a policy that could appeal to the country as a whole.

When red-state voters and elected officials complained that their states were being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, Democrats found those protests easy to ignore. They were happening somewhere else. But when red states’ governors pushed migrants toward blue-state cities over the past several years, protests from mayors and governors finally began to register. But still not enough to create coherent Democratic policies, alas.

It’s open season on former president Joe Biden these days, and he doesn’t deserve all the retrospective criticism he’s getting. But on immigration, he was anything but a profile in courage. Security advisers including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkaswanted tougher border policies starting in 2021. But political advisers such as Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who sought amity with immigration rights progressives in Congress and the party’s base, resisted strong measures. Though Biden was elected as a centrist, he leaned left — and waited until the last months of his presidency to take the strong enforcement measures recommended earlier.

Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump played shamelessly on public anxieties about the border. Some of his arguments, such as claims that hungry migrants were eating pets, were grotesque. They were simply provocations. But Biden and Kamala Harris didn’t have good answers, other than indignation. They had straddled the issue through Biden’s term, talking about border security but failing to enact it, and the public knew it.

Democrats finally came up with a bipartisan border bill in 2024 that would have given the president more authority to expel migrants and deny asylum claims, and more money to secure the border. Republicans, led by Trump, were shameless opportunists in opposing the bill. They didn’t want Biden to have a win. In the end, Democrats didn’t have the votes — or, frankly, the credibility on the issue. Biden took executive action in June 2024, limiting entry into the United States. But it was too late. He could have taken that action in 2021.

Since Trump took office in January, he has been building toward this week’s confrontation in the streets. ICE raids have steadily increased in cities with large migrant populations, as have nationwide quotas for arrests and deportations. Trump declared a national emergency on Inauguration Day that gave him authority to send troops to the border to “assist” in controlling immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem seized every photo opportunity to convey a militarized approach to the coming clash. Over these months, the immigration issue has been a car crash skidding toward us in slow motion.

Since his first term, Trump has clearly wanted a military confrontation with the left over immigration or racial issues. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped talk Trump out of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 to contain the unrest that followed the death of George Floyd. But this time, Trump faces no opposition. He is surrounded by yes-men and -women.

The saddest part is that Democrats still have no clear policy. Some blue-state mayors and governors have pledged to provide “sanctuary” for migrants, but they don’t have good arguments to rebut Trump’s claim that they’re interfering with the enforcement of federal law. In some cases, sanctuary has meant refusing to hand over undocumented migrants convicted of violent crimes, former DHS officials tell me. That’s wrong. The courts have limited Trump’s most arbitrary policies and his defiance of due process, but not his authority to enforce immigration laws.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this week chose sensible ground to fight,  filing a lawsuitchallenging Trump’s authority to override gubernatorial power by federalizing National Guard troops when there isn’t a “rebellion” or “invasion.” There is no evidence of such extreme danger — or that local law enforcement in Los Angeles can’t handle the problems.

But Newsom’s smart pushback doesn’t get Democrats out of addressing an issue they’ve been ducking for more than a decade: Do they have the courage to enforce the border themselves?

Over the long run, taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts and more border-control people and facilities — and a fair, legal way of deciding who stays and who goes. But right now, it means Democratic mayors and governors using state and local police to contain protests, so that troops aren’t necessary — and preventing extremists among the activists from fomenting the cataclysm in the streets that some of them seem to want as much as Trump.

Yes, of course, we need new bipartisan legislation to resolve the gut issue of how to protect the “dreamers” and other longtime residents who show every day that they want only to be good citizens. But on the way to that day of sweet reason, Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn’t immoral to have a border.

Posted on

Democrats and Working Class Voters: Facing Reality, Biting the Bullet

Dana Milbank, Democrats don’t have a working-class problem. America does: Extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power gave rise to FDR’s New Deal—Democrats should be no less ambitious now

Milbank lays it on the line. He writes,

Working people no longer vote their interests as “workers” but cast ballots for all kinds of different reasons. They shifted several points away from Democrats between 2020 and 2024 — but so did many different groups across the electorate, mostly because they were unhappy with the Biden administration’s performance on inflation.

The reductive analysis of working-class voters abandoning Democrats is particularly maddening because it misses what’s actually happening to those voters, which is a crisis much bigger than the temporary fortunes of a political party. This is less a Democratic problem than an American problem — but Democrats have a fresh chance to try to fix it.

For nearly half a century, and particularly over the past two decades, corporate America has plunged workers ever deeper into job and income insecurity. Employers, benefiting from weakened labor laws and lax enforcement of those that remain on the books, have been forcing workers into erratic schedules, hiring them as contractors or temporary or gig workers and stealing their wages. It’s no coincidence that all this happened while labor union membership, which peaked at one-third of the workforce, shriveled to the current 10 percent.

With the decline of unions and collective bargaining, pay has stagnated and pensions have disappeared. Wealth inequality has soared, earnings have become less dependable, and most workers report that they feel stressed, unappreciated, disconnected and distrustful of their employers. They are surveilled on the job, sanctioned for expressing themselves and subjected to dehumanizing workplaces. “Here most of us are, toiling under the authority of communist dictators, and we do not see the reality for what it is,” wrote University of Michigan philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson. The financial collapse of 2008 and the coronavirus pandemic only deepened the insecurity and misery.

Voting patterns, not just this year’s but this century’s, reflect the discontent and instability. In nine of the past 10 federal elections, one party or the other has lost control of the White House, Senate or House. Voters, desperate for a fundamental change, punish the incumbent party and then, inevitably finding no relief, punish the other party two years later. Politics has become a depressing game of ping-pong, with no enduring wins.

“We’ve never had a period since at least the late 19th century where there have been so many knife’s-edge elections,” Podhorzer [the former political director of the AFL-CIO] told me. “So, coming out of every election, Democrats assume all we need is fine tuning, because we barely lost. We have to get past thinking we’re going to message our way out of this moment. It’s so much bigger than that. And it ignores the fact that, for all of the 21st century, we’ve been seeing that voters just want a different system, a more profound change.”

Even some on the right have begun to argue for a revival of labor unions and New Deal-style government intervention to undo the damage of the past half-century of neoliberalism, the era of the unfettered free market that began with President Ronald Reagan. The conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari argued in his 2023 book, “Tyranny, Inc.,” that the current “domination of working and middle-class people by the owners of capital, the asset-less by the asset-rich,” has “drained the vigor and substance out of democracy, facilitated massive upward transfers of wealth, and left ordinary people feeling isolated and powerless.”

In the short term, Democrats could change nothing and they’d still probably do well by default in the 2026 midterms as disenchanted voters once again punish the incumbent party. President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a popular mandate: The latest figures show he got below 50 percent of the popular vote, Harris lost by about 1.6 percentage points, and Democrats may have actually gained a seat or two in the House. And he’s already overreaching with outlandish nominations and announced plans to start a trade war with Canada, Mexico and China.

But in the long term, doing nothing would be a huge mistake — for the party and, more important, for the country. We are, in some ways, back to the extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power over workers that gave rise to the modern labor movement in the 1930s and the New Deal’s government-regulated capitalism, which led America to three decades of broadly shared economic prosperity after World War II. What’s needed to relieve workers’ pain this time is no less ambitious.