Prior to a few days ago, I would have suggested that if you wanted to have your head hurt about the complexities of immigration, reading the schematic and article, “How to Fix America’s Immigration Crisis,” by Steven Rattner and Maureen White in the “New York Times” of January 14, 2024 was perfect.

Briefly there was a competitor for a migraine: a bipartisan border bill with a doubtful outlook, not because of its intrinsic qualities, but because Trump is urging his Senate followers in Congress not to support it. He hopes to use an unresolved border immigration issue as a big weapon against Biden in the upcoming election campaign, a rematch desired by approximately nobody.

Newsflash: the bill was DOA before it touched the floor of that august institution known as the Senate, where the votes were not there to advance it. Four months of bipartisan negotiation gone, poof!

Negotiation of the border bill brings to mind the saying that there are two things you do not want to witness being made: sausage and laws. How does funding for Ukraine or Israel tie to America’s immigration situation. It doesn’t, only as pawns (more like knights actually) in a political game of chess.

To make myself knowledgeable on this bill (maybe a bit of understanding will be useful in the future, who knows), I stacked up a bunch of newspaper articles and then put them aside in favor of watching a webinar by the American Immigration Council (AIC). In case you had no knowledge of AIC’s advocacy position, their body language, selection of verbiage (hefty dose of “supposedly”) and laughter at various components of the bill provided an accurate clue.

Anyway, here is what I learned (or maybe not; it is a touch confusing, and maybe it’s all moot, pending an election between two individuals who should age out of public life): if an average of 4,000 people walked across the border in a seven-day period, then a Border Engagement Authority would be activated and certain procedural steps would be taken concerning asylum seekers in particular. They might be slotted for a Reasonable Fear Interview or a Credible Fear Interview, each of which affects the asylum officer’s appraisal on whether they have a serious issue back in the home country and each of which affects the odds that said officer will say, “welcome to America,” and instruct them to pick up another form over there or on the phone or somewhere within reach. And the immigrant must be careful all along; a question answered differently on two pieces of paper and a return plane ticket may be the outcome. This is labeled “perpetual risk.”

In the interest of “streamlining” the process under the deceased bill, asylum officers will have a maximum of 90 days to put the asylee in the right category; if they are moved from category A to category B, there is another 90-day limit. Accomplishing this (from any rational bureaucrat’s lips to God’s ears) required a bit of a trade-off: the asylum officer now would have basically judicial power, no more kicking cases up for judicial review. This provision seems likely to rear its head again, unless there is a major increase in the relevant judicial system

An additional facet is that Expedited Removal (sorry for the multiple caps, but they are for real, not for emphasis) gets accelerated, though it is limited to those apprehended within 15 days of their encounter and within 100 miles of the border. (The latter is reminiscence of history, when people in a bunch of colonial offices far from the affected populace decided where to draw boundaries for the latter.) Since the whole idea is to make immigration more difficult, Expedited Removal seems like a future keeper.

To its credit, AIC’s characterization of the unarticulated message of the border bill was on point for the majority of people: there are simply too many people crossing the border.

Poor Biden: as he attempted to cope with the flood of migrants bussed to major cities across the country, he was under fire from even Democratic governors, and when he toughens any rules whatsoever, he is attacked by the progressive left as following a Trump playbook (“I will shut down the border”), and, for them, there can be no worse characterization of course.

 As mentioned, Ukraine and Israel were interested parties regarding the funding outcome of this political nightmare. Something about people dying, that sort of thing. Now they must hope that separate funding bills, i.e., no inclusion of border stuff, will ease the pain of the border bill collapse.

Right now, the border is de facto completely open. Other than eye witness accounts, perhaps the biggest supporting evidence is that a TikToker can develop a travel agent type business advising people how to get through the Darien Gap and eventually walk into the USA. There is an entire ecosystem of businesses providing services and products to those entering this path to a different world.

Relatedly, buying stock in an immigrant smuggling business when President Biden took office would have been highly lucrative, even after giving a required cut to the gangs which have made themselves partners of people seeking a new life in the North.

FYI:

The details pertinent to the above are not incorporated in my thoughts below, which had been previously written and I had to do something with them. An “Updated Compilation on Immigration” was posted last August and over the years I have written much about immigration. Maybe I will again, someday, perhaps revisiting the 2013 legislation which passed the Senate with 68 votes, 14 of which came from Republicans. The latter party, controlling the House of Representatives, then killed this bill. Talk about the gang which can’t shoot straight.

Overview:

The most important initial step is a clearly articulated statement by a bipartisan coalition of economists that the USA must be pro-immigrant if it is to pursue continued economic growth. For most people most of the time, this phrasing resonates with more impact than treating immigration as an issue of humaneness. If immigrants are perceived as stealing jobs or undercutting wage levels (neither of which is supported by historical data), then anti-immigrant sentiment will smother any consideration of the convoluted asylum aspect.

It would be nice to neatly categorize immigrants as being legal or illegal, but what is the applicable label for the millions who are in limbo waiting years in many cases for their cases, especially asylum, to be decided. They go about their lives partly like you and I: working (in whatever arrangement is doable), paying their bills (do you think they want undue attention), taking care of their family (however defined and wherever located), and partly with a perpetual cloud over their heads – are they destined to become Americans or will they be requested to board a plane to return to what is no longer their true home.

Data Points: only a few to paint a picture of the magnitudes involved

*From the “Wall Street Journal” of 11/31/24, citing statistics from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, border encounters in the year ended September, 2023 were 2.5 million, compared with 458,000 in fiscal 2020. The early average in fiscal 2024 is 8,600 per day.

*The following are a few previously published numbers (“New York Times” of 11/28/23) which bring together the different components of immigration: Border patrol arrests from 2/2021 to 9/2023: six million. People waiting on their asylum requests: two million (writer’s note: now it is reportedly three million, compared with 300,000 in 2012). New applications last year: 800,000. Number of immigration judges: 659 (or is it 800: different source). Number of asylum officers: 800. Typical wait time to get an answer regarding asylum: a decade. Five-year cost to eliminate the asylum backlog: $2 billion.  Note that if an asylum decision is not made in five months, the applicant can get a temporary work permit.

*In 2006, funding for U.S. Customs was $8 billion; now it is over $21 billion, all without an effective immigration reform program having been implemented, only a series of ad hoc reactions and rules. It is as if you have some lumber here and there, a toilet seat or two, some lamps, a sink, packages of shingles – all legitimate components, but alas, the house proved incapable of being built.

Some Discussion Comments

(Yes, a book could be written, with enough data to choke a statistician.)

*The Achilles heel of all immigration reform efforts is three-fold: (1) whether in truth the USA only wants certain immigrants when it wants them to do certain jobs; otherwise, it has no use for immigrants,

(2) closely related is the necessity for – symbolically – affluent white homeowners to regard their minority landscaper as a person with the same level of humanity, a person with a family (wherever they may be), with kids with aspirations, with values, with fears – both articulated and buried inside, you know like the homeowner, and (3) since a quality education is tied to economic mobility, the aging wealth holding segment of the American population must commit to educational support. Without it, the American Dream is a mirage.

*It must be acknowledged that no large group of any kind can be 100% devoid of a criminal element, i.e, the situation with immigrants is no different from that which exists throughout the existing population.

*Humane considerations pertinent to immigrants making difficult family decisions cannot hobble the need to have rules that inevitably will evoke cries of unfairness.

*Repeated immigration lawbreakers (a civil violation) must be apprehended and returned to their home country. Without that degree of discipline, any reform program will be close to useless.

*Immigrants cannot be considered as chattel for employers. Enforcement of E-Verify must be rigorous and fines for violations, substantial. Whether this results in a wave of deportations, which is not desired, depends on the timeframe and the applicability of other reform measures.

*There needs to be more emphasis on skills and less on family units; the ideal of course is that the two come as a single package.

*Ten-year green cards should be immediately given to those with DACA designations.

*Those hailing from other countries who major in STEM disciplines and earn Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees at American universities should be given five-year green cards.

*The USA must acknowledge that it cannot be deeply involved in promoting and underwriting structural changes within countries sending large numbers of immigrants to the USA. It cannot resolve economic and political challenges, wealth disparities, and corruption situations. The fact that historical transgressions by the USA contributed mightily to many of these issues simply does not mean that the USA can solve them. Consistent with this observation is that constantly/periodically figuring out quotas for individual countries based on their mix of both natural and man-made problems which cause people to leave is an impossible objective. Maybe there should be a ten-year cap, with a first come, first served sign-up at processing centers located in selected countries. Inevitably there will be the criticism that the numbers are arbitrary; yes, aren’t they all?

*Since immigration is a federal responsibility and the benefits thereof accrue to the country in total, the incremental costs associated with reform cannot be an unfunded mandate of individual states. It is the federal government’s job to secure the border by whatever means necessary. This sounds harsh, but how else can other reform efforts be successful, especially the processing of border crossers who have done it the right way.

*Ten-year sunset clauses should be used liberally in order to properly assess the pros and cons of the multiple components of immigration reform. The Law of Unintended Consequence is relevant.

*There must be a significant increase in the number of judges assigned to asylum cases; processing times must be sharply reduced to cut stress for all concerned.

Speaking of judges, it was a pleasure for your writer to speak at the recent swearing in ceremony of a woman whom I have known for thirty years. How did she get to the USA: she took “the scenic route.”