A Bad Week For Legal Immigration

Republicans have long claimed to support legal immigration, even as they pursue a hardline against illegal immigrants. I’ve written before how that has not been necessarily true of the Trump Administration, which has introduced a number of policies aimed at curbing legal immigration. This week yielded more bad news for proponents of legal immigration.

The first bit of bad news was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Trump Administration’s rule blocking asylum-seekers from asking for asylum in the United States if they pass through a third country and don’t ask for asylum there first. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case but struck down an injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that prevented the government from enforcing the policy while the case was being heard.

From the perspective of proponents of legal immigration, the new policy is a bad one for several reasons. The law is aimed primarily at Central American refugees who pass through Mexico in order to ask for asylum in the US. Applying for asylum is legal under US law so the policy is clearly intended to discourage legal immigration by making it more difficult and requiring these refugees to seek asylum in Mexico.

For many reasons, Mexico is not an attractive place for asylum-seekers. Our neighbor to the South is itself a poverty-stricken nation that is plagued by drug violence. It is unlikely that Mexico can accommodate a large influx of refugees. The fact that Mexico itself is the source of many migrants to the US says a lot about the country’s ability to accept refugees.

On the other side, Republicans claim that immigrants are abusing the asylum law by asking for asylum because they are seeking economic opportunity rather than because they are part of a persecuted group. Data from the National Immigration Forum shows that in 2016, the most recent year for which complete data was available, immigration courts granted approval to asylum-seekers in 28 percent of cases. Interestingly, the largest source of asylum-seekers is China, a country that will not be affected by the new policy since most Chinese immigrants can fly directly to the US from their homeland.

The ultimate question before the Court should not be whether the Trump Administration’s policy is wise or humanitarian but whether the president has the legal authority to change US immigration law. Does the law passed by Congress grant the president the leeway to unilaterally make such a significant change? In barring the government from enforcing the rule, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar wrote that the policy “is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.” It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide that question, but, for now at least, the Trump Administration has another tool for turning back Central American refugees.

The second blow to legal immigration was President Trump’s decision to deny citizens of the Bahamas temporary protected status in the wake of the devastation to their country left by Hurricane Dorian. The storm left at least 50 people dead and about 2,500 are missing. An estimated 70,000 more are homeless.

Temporary protected status would allow Bahamians to temporarily live and work in the United States while their country recovers, but Reuters reported on Wednesday that the program, which currently includes about 300,000 people from 10 different countries affected by natural disasters and wars, would not be extended to hurricane refugees. Per Axios, a TPS designation would affect only those Bahamians in the US at the time of the designation, an estimated 1,500 people. Officials from Florida had requested TPS status to allow Bahamian refugees to live with families in that state earlier this week.

“The Bahamians impacted by Hurricane Dorian are facing a humanitarian crisis, and the American government, international partners and private organizations continue to support them with aid and services. At this time, we do not plan to invoke Temporary Protected Status for those currently in the United States,” a White House official said.

There seems to be no leeway in accepting Bahamian refugees. Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan of U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially said, “We will accept anyone on humanitarian reasons that needs to come here” and that, “If your life is in jeopardy and you're in the Bahamas and you want to get to the United States, you're going to be allowed to come to the United States, whether you have travel documents or not.”

But President Trump overruled Morgan on Monday, telling reporters, “We have to be very careful. Everybody needs totally proper documentation. The Bahamas had some tremendous problems with people going to the Bahamas that weren’t supposed to be there. I don't want to allow people that weren't supposed to be in the Bahamas to come into the United States, including some very bad people and some very bad gang members, and some very, very bad drug dealers. So, we're going to be very strong on that.”

“Bahamians must be in possession of a valid, unexpired passport or a Bahamian Travel Document listing nationality as Bahamian. Bahamians arriving to the United States by vessel must be in possession of a valid passport AND valid travel visa,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Monday. “Travelers who would otherwise qualify for the Visa Waiver Program and who travel by air from a CBP Preclearance facility in Freeport or Nassau may not need a U.S. visitor's visa.” The DHS statement also contradicts Morgan.

It is understandable to want immigrants to come to the US legally, but it is not understandable to insist that people obey the law and then make the law almost impossible to follow. “I want tremendous numbers of people to come in,” Donald Trump said in 2015 as he promised a “big beautiful door in the wall,” but, since becoming president, the door to legal immigration has been pushed further closed by Trump’s policies.

If Republicans really want to encourage legal immigration, the process should be made easier, not more difficult. If not, they should be honest about it.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Trump’s DACA Offer Failed And What He Should Do Next

President Donald Trump has proposed a compromise offer to end the shutdown impasse and Democrats seem to have rejected it out of hand. While Trump’s deal has been lauded by many Republicans, in reality, it is not as magnanimous as it seems. Even though Trump’s offer is a step in the right direction, it is completely understandable why Democrats have rejected the offer.

Trump’s offer includes $5.7 billion for a wall that would not stretch the full length of the border but be placed in strategic locations. Construction would include the 115 miles now under construction or under contract, and 230 more miles this year. In exchange, the president offered Democrats three years of relief for 700,000 DACA participants. This would include the ability to get work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation.

While the border barrier part of the offer seems fair, the DACA portion is problematic. Essentially what Trump is saying is that if you give me everything I want, I’ll give you something slightly better than the status quo for three years and, at that point, we are back to square one. Trump gets something permanent and the Democrats get something temporary.

A big part of the problem is that Speaker Pelosi knows that Congress is unlikely to fix the immigration problem three years from now. Congress has neglected to act on illegal immigration since 2007, largely because Republicans oppose anything that can be termed “amnesty,” which in their view means “anything other than deportation of all illegals.”

If President Trump wins the 2020 election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, a DACA fix would be dead on arrival. Some radical Republicans oppose a pathway to legalization under any circumstance as much as radical Democrats oppose a wall under any circumstances.

Prospects for a standalone DACA deal look bleak even if Democrats have a good year in 2020. If they win the Senate but not the White House, President Trump can veto the bill. If Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, Republicans will most likely retain enough votes to filibuster a Democrat immigration bill.

For years now, I have held the opinion that the only way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is with a comprehensive reform bill. Both sides want different things and neither has enough votes to pass their own priorities. Both sides do have enough votes to block the other, however, so the result is a stalemate. There are only two possible solutions: Either wait until your party controls the presidency, the House, and has a supermajority in the Senate or else meet in the middle with a compromise.

President Trump is on the right track with his offer, but there are several elements that a successful bill must include. To minimize the effect of the law of unintended consequences as well as to get the necessary votes to pass, a compromise bill must contain:

·        Border security with triggers to make sure that a secure border is in place before the pathway to legalization. Security should go beyond a wall in select areas and include sensors to detect tunnels as well as an increased Border Patrol presence.

·        In exchange, Democrats get a pathway to legalization, not just for DACA participants, but for illegals who reside in the US and hold productive jobs with no record of serious or violent crimes. (Yes, illegal immigration is a crime, but it’s a crime in the same way that speeding is a crime. Improper entry by an alien is a civil infraction punishable by a $50 fine.) Legalization should be on a case-by-case basis with priority toward illegals who benefit their community and the US economy.

·        In exchange for leniency, penalties need to be severe enough to deter future illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration should be a felony punishable by prison time followed by mandatory deportation.

·        E-verify should be implemented to require businesses to hire legal immigrants only. Penalties should be stiff for those who knowingly violate the law.

·        In exchange for stronger penalties, the US needs to revamp current immigration law to make it easier for migrants to legally enter the country to work for US employers and then return home. There should be a guest worker program to avoid a labor shortage when the flow of illegal migrants is cut off.

·        The immigration process for permanent immigrants also needs to be reformed. Currently, the US educates foreign students in our colleges and then denies them green cards to work for our companies. This makes no sense and is actually encouraging companies to move outside the US. Decades-long waits for legal immigration encourage illegal immigration and need to be fixed.

·        Finally, visa overstays make up two-thirds of new illegal aliens. A system to track foreigners here on visas needs to be put into place.

Even with such a sweet deal, Democrats might not take President Trump up on his offer. After two years of name-calling and goading the opposition party, Trump may have so poisoned the well that no deal is possible. However, if Democrats turn down a total and fair reform of the immigration system, they will have to answer to their own base.

Ironically, Donald Trump might be the president who could deliver Republican votes for comprehensive immigration reform. In the same way that only Nixon could go to China, Trump’s hardline reputation on immigration and his devoted following from his base could inspire Republicans to support a comprehensive bill where they would desert most traditional Republicans. However, there is a significant risk for Trump that his base would fracture over what they perceive as amnesty. Anne Coulter is Exhibit A for this possibility.

Despite the risks for Trump, he obviously needs to sweeten the pot to bring Democrats on board. Doing so will require significant and permanent concessions from the GOP. That is the only way that a wall is going to happen.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Nancy Pelosi Says Deal Linking Wall And DACA Will Be DOA

Once-and-future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has fired a shot across the bow of the Trump Administration on immigration. The California Democrat, popularly known as “San Fran Nan,” is preemptively signaling that Democrats won’t sign onto a deal that ties President Trump’s wall funding to a permanent fix for the DACA program.

In comments to reporters on Thursday as the House and Senate approved an extension of spending that will fund the government until Dec. 21, Pelosi rejected the idea of a compromise that would link the president’s wall project to making Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program permanent.

“They’re two different subjects,” Pelosi told the Associated Press.

It is extremely doubtful that House Democrats could be persuaded to fund the wall as part of a standalone bill. Pelosi added that many Democrats consider the wall to be “immoral, ineffective and expensive.” Even if Mexico paid for the wall as Donald Trump promised in the election, she said, “It’s immoral still.” So far, Mexico has shown no sign of being willing to fund the wall either.

Earlier this year, Democrats refused to budge on similar proposals to legalize DACA participants. A Trump Administration proposal from January would have represented a major victory for Democrats in exchange for a $25 billion commitment to the wall. That deal was scuttled by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats. Afterward, President Trump said that there would be “NO MORE DACA DEAL.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/980443810529533952

In reality, neither side wants a comprehensive immigration deal. Republicans have long opposed comprehensive immigration reform, preferring instead to insist that border security must come first. For more than a decade, any Republican who has supported a comprehensive fix for the immigration system has been accused of supporting “amnesty” and “open borders” and is reviled by the Republican base. A significant number of Republicans opposed President Trump’s DACA deal because they thought it would benefit Democrats.

For their part, Democrats seem to prefer that the issue be kept open to provide them with a wedge that makes Republicans appear bigoted and xenophobic. As the two parties battle over the Hispanic demographic, Democrats cannot afford to let a Republican president claim credit for fixing the popular DACA program. Likewise, giving President Trump a victory on the wall, his signature issue, would boost Trump’s reelection chances and energize his base. Democrats cannot allow that.

Ironically both parties risk alienating voters with their hardline positions on immigration. Exit polls from 2018 showed that minorities are fleeing the Republican Party, but the downside may be even greater for Democrats. There were pro-DACA protests against the Democratic Party in March after the implosion of the DACA deal. If pro-immigration voters decide that Democrats are stringing them along, they may give Republicans a try.

The reality is that neither side has the numbers to enact its own unilateral immigration bill. That will be especially true when Democrats take control of the House next year, but even over the past two years, minority Democrats in the Senate were able to kill Republican bills with the filibuster.

Until the two sides decide to work together (or until one side controls both houses of Congress and the presidency and eliminates the filibuster), there will be no fix for our broken immigration system. Until that day, the border will stay open and illegal immigrants will remain in legal limbo. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Illegal Immigrant Crime Wave Is A Myth

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts was a tragedy. That her killer was an illegal immigrant makes the crime seem even worse and more senseless. Yet, as conservative news outlets focus attention on 24-year-old Christhian Rivera, a Mexican national living and working illegally in the US, it is important to distinguish between fact and fiction in the discussion about the so-called illegal immigrant crime wave.

Despite claims from immigration hawks, the data does not support claims of a crisis level of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. In any large group, there will be both good and bad people. The question is not whether illegal immigrants commit violent crimes, it is whether they do so at a rate that is higher than native-born Americans.

Due to the nature of the group being studied, reliable data is hard to come by. Official government statistics about “criminal aliens” from the GAO do not distinguish between legal and illegal aliens. Therefore, some studies, such as John Lott’s 2018 study of Arizona inmates, are flawed because they make assumptions about who is a legal immigrant and who is not. It’s tough to determine how many crimes are committed by illegals if you can’t determine who is an illegal alien.

There are other ways to skin the cat though. A 2018 article in Criminology cited several studies that looked at community-wide crime rates. One compared “gateway” cities with high immigrant populations to “traditional” American cities. Another looked at different neighborhoods in Austin, Texas. Both found no evidence that neighborhoods with high numbers of immigrants had higher crime rates A third study examined federal Uniform Crime Report data from 2000 through 2010. The study found that even though immigration increased during the period, the crime rate decreased.

When the researchers looked at violent crime, the pattern was the same. Far from being the most dangerous places in the country, cities with many recent immigrants had the lowest homicide rates. Murder rates were more closely associated with age and socially disorganized neighborhoods than immigration status. Immigrants, possibly due to their strong family structures, often helped to lower the homicide and crime rates in their neighborhoods.

Earlier this year, Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute also published a study of illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas where crime data distinguishes between illegal and legal immigrants. The Texas data showed that the overall crime rate and the violent crime rate for both legal and illegal immigrants were far below that of native-born Americans.

Cities on the southern border do not rank among the most dangerous cities in the US even though they are in close proximity to the source of much illegal immigration. The most dangerous city in America is Detroit, located near the Canadian border. We might do more to lower the crime by deploying the national guard to Michigan than the Mexican border.

The killing of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, another high profile case, seems fresh because her killer was acquitted less than a year ago. In reality, Steinle died in 2015. If three years pass between such highly publicized murder cases involving illegal immigrants, it is de facto evidence that such cases are hard to find. If the immigration hardliners could find more cases to sensationalize for their cause, there is little doubt that they would do so.

Despite the headlines about crimes committed by immigrants, it makes logical sense that immigrants commit fewer crimes. The vast majority of immigrants, both legal and illegal, come to the US to work. They have a powerful incentive to stay out of trouble and steer clear of law enforcement. If they get into legal trouble, they not only lose their income, they can be deported. Their entire way of life is at risk if they commit even a small crime and attract the attention of police.

There are violent immigrants, such as members of MS-13, the infamous criminal gang, but even this is exaggerated. There are an estimated 10,000 members of MS-13 in the US, but most are American citizens and not immigrants. Even if the gang was made up entirely of illegal immigrants, it would represent a tiny fraction of the estimated 12 million illegals living in the US.

If the family of Mollie Tibbetts does not take comfort from data that shows that immigrants are more law-abiding that US citizens, that is understandable. However, good policy decisions are not made in the heat of the moment based on an emotional reaction to a tragedy. That is as true with crimes committed by illegals as it is after mass shootings when victims and their relatives often clamor for a quick solution. As H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” As citizens of a republic, we pay our elected officials to dispassionately consider the facts and enact policies based on the right solution rather than impractical, feel-good policies.

In fact, the anti-immigrant chorus in the wake of Mollie Tibbetts’s murder sounds a lot like the anti-gun crowd after a mass shooting. In a great many cases, the phrase “illegal immigrant” in Republican rhetoric can be interchanged with the word “gun” in Democratic rhetoric after a mass shooting. Granted, Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive if there were no illegal immigrants, but there would also be no mass shootings if there were no guns. Neither argument contains a practical solution. Deporting all illegals is no more workable than banning all guns.

For conservatives, a practical solution to the problem of illegal immigrant crime should fit the problem. The conservative solution should keep government growth to a minimum, it should keep costs to a minimum (including both direct expenditures and costs to the economy from removing people from the workforce) and it should minimize disruptions to families. Conservatives should keep in mind that many illegal immigrants have family members, often dependents, who are American citizens with the same constitutional rights as any other American.

Considering the fact that most illegal immigrants are peaceful contributors to the US economy and their local communities, the best solution seems to be to focus on illegals with a propensity for violence rather than wasting limited law enforcement resources on people who are here to earn a living. Border security is needed to control who enters the country, but so is reform for the legal immigration system. Fewer migrant workers will cross the border illegally if the wall has a big door with a welcome sign.

The murder of Mollie Tibbetts was a horrible crime, but it should not be used to unfairly demonize all illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is a crime, but there is a huge difference between crossing the border to work without authorization and committing a brutal murder. Any conservative solution must recognize the difference.

Originally published on The Resurgent

BREAKING: President Trump Signs Order To End Family Separations

Less than 24 hours after saying that only Congress could change the immigration law that requires authorities to separate the children of illegal immigrants from their parents, President Trump has reversed himself. The president announced today that he will sign an Executive Order “to keep families together.”

“We are going to sign an Executive Order in a little while to keep families together, but we have to maintain toughness,” President Trump said.

Trump signed the order in the Oval Office on Wednesday, telling reporters, “We're signing an executive order. I consider it to be a very important executive order. It's about keeping families together, while at the same time being sure we have a very powerful, very strong border.”

The Executive Order declares that the policy of the Trump Administration is “to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.” Trump instructs the Department of Homeland Security “to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members,” rather than transferring the children to the Department of Health and Human Services, unless keeping the family together would “pose a risk to the child’s welfare.” The order does not end the zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants.

It is not clear how the Executive Order will withstand the Flores Agreement. The 1997 court settlement requires the government to place illegal immigrant children with family members “without unnecessary delay” or hold the children in the “least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs” otherwise.

As recently as yesterday, the president claimed that there was no legal way to avoid the separations. “Under current law, we have only two policy options to respond to this massive crisis,” Trump told the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “We can either release all illegal immigrant families [of] minors who show up at the border from Central America or we can arrest the adults for the federal crime of illegal entry. Those are the only two options, totally open borders for criminal prosecution for lawbreaking.”

“So, what I’m asking Congress to do is to give us a third option, which we have been requesting since last year — the legal authority to detain and promptly remove families together as a unit,” Trump continued. “This is the only solution to the border crisis.”

President Trump had claimed that the law mandated that children be separated from their parents, who were being arrested on immigration charges. Current law and the Flores Agreement also applied to previous administrations, but neither the Obama nor Bush Administration chose to systematically break up families. The Trump Administration’s zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting all illegal border crossers led to the systematic separation of families where previous administrations referred illegal immigrants to civil deportation hearings where the families could remain together. The Dallas News reports that approximately 2,000 children were separated from their parents between late April and the end of May under the new policy.

President Trump’s reversal is similar President Obama’s reversal on the so-called “Dreamers.” In 2010, when asked about the DREAM Act, Obama said, “I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself.” In 2011, he said, “[With] respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case.” The same year, he reiterated that he could not “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works.” In spite of all that, in 2012, Obama unilaterally implement the DACA program that suspended deportations and provided work authorizations for people who entered the country illegally as children.

The president’s reversal may be related to a new CNN poll that showed that Americans opposed the zero-tolerance policy by more than two-to-one. Prominent Republicans criticized the Administration on the issue and Republican congressmen were preparing plans to overturn the policy.

Even with the end to the separation policy, immigration will not disappear as a hot-button issue. There has still been no resolution to the DACA problem, many industries are experiencing a shortage of immigrant workers and there is still no funding for the “big, beautiful wall.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ted Cruz Unveils Plan To End Immigrant Family Separation

Ted Cruz is riding to the rescue of the President Trump and the Republican Party with a plan to extricate the GOP from the public relations bloodbath that it is experiencing from Trump Administration policies that result in immigrant children being separated from their parents.

Sen. Cruz (R-Texas) plans to introduce “emergency legislation” to resolve what he calls a situation that has “horrified” Americans. The senator plans to introduce the Protect Kids and Parents Act this week.

 “All Americans are rightly horrified by the images we are seeing on the news, children in tears pulled away from their mothers and fathers,” Crus said on his website. “This must stop. Now. We can end this crisis by passing the legislation I am introducing this week.”

The Cruz plan contains four main points:

·         Double the number of immigration judges from 375 to 750

·         Authorize new family shelters

·         Mandate that families be kept together unless there is “aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children”

·         Expedite asylum cases so that a decision will be made within 14 days

“Repeatedly, I have visited detention facilities tragically housing young children,” Cruz said.  “For far too long, children have been the greatest victims of our broken immigration system, with tens of thousands of children who were detained under the Obama Administration and continuing through today, and with far too many of those children facing horrific physical or sexual assault from criminal human traffickers.”

Cruz continued, “The answer is not what congressional Democrats are proposing: simply releasing illegal aliens and returning to the failed policy of ‘catch and release.’ Rather, we should fix the backlog in immigration cases, remove the legal barriers to swift processing, and resolve asylum cases on an expedited basis.”

In a speech before the National Federation of Independent Businesses, President Trump appeared to fire back at Cruz’s proposal saying, “Ultimately, we have to have a real border, not judges.”

On Twitter, Trump doubled down on the zero-tolerance policy of arresting all illegal border crossers. “We must always arrest people coming into our Country illegally. Of the 12,000 children, 10,000 are being sent by their parents on a very dangerous trip, and only 2000 are with their parents, many of whom have tried to enter our Country illegally on numerous occasions,” the president tweeted.

As with many of the president’s policies, the separation of immigrant families is very unpopular except among Republicans. Overall, two-thirds of Americans oppose the policy in a new CNN poll while only 28 percent approve. Numbers are reversed for Republicans, the only group to approve, with 58 percent in favor and 35 percent against. Ominously for the midterms, independents oppose the president’s policy by more than two-to-one.

Among congressional Republicans, there seems to be widespread support for ending the separation of families. Several other congressmen are also working on proposals to fix the problem.

“We can fix this,” Cruz said. “If my Democratic colleagues will join me, not play politics but work to solve the problem, we can start to end family separation this week. And, we can honor the rule of law.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

How To Solve The Immigration Problem

With the revelations about the Trump Administration policy of separating children of illegal immigrants from their parents, federal immigration policy is back in the headlines. After the failure of the DACA deal earlier this year, the controversy gives Congress another chance to finally fix our broken immigration system.

The first step in the immigration fix is to realize that it requires a bipartisan compromise. Some of my conservative friends have fought immigration reform for years on the grounds that border security should come first. This stance has resulted in the status quo on the border being preserved for a decade. Republicans need to realize that unless they get enough Senate votes to end a filibuster, a standalone border security bill is never going to pass.

There is no indication that the GOP is going to get a supermajority any time soon. With prospects in the midterm elections looking gloomy, it will be a struggle for Republicans to maintain control of the House, let alone seize a filibuster-proof lock on the Senate.

If the border is going to be secured, it must be as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, President Trump has poisoned the well with his demands for a “big beautiful wall” and Democrats have become so crazed in their anti-Trump stance that they were unable to accept a generous compromise on DACA in February.

In the wake of that failure and with job creation booming, immigration policy should be ripe for reform. Public opinion has favored reform for years. Democrats apparently believed that any failure to pass a bill would be blamed on Republicans, but their resistance backfired as DACA protesters rallied against the DNC. Further foot-dragging could erode their base.

For their part, Republicans usually favor changing laws that don’t work, but immigration law has become a sacred cow. Taking a closer look at current law shows that it is unworkable. The border is not sealed and penalties for illegal immigration amount to a slap on the wrist. To make matters worse, legal immigration is so restrictive and difficult that it encourages people to break the law and cross illegally or overstay visas.

The status quo also risks alienating the traditional Republican support from businesses. Under President Trump, temporary work visas have been reduced. I described last month how the shortage of visas is wreaking havoc in the Maryland crab processing industry and with other employers around the country who depend on immigrant workers. Recent reports that the US now has more job openings than workers to fill them underscore the need for more legal immigration. Conservatives should realize the effect of the Law of Unintended Consequences on shutting off the flow of immigrant labor.

Some conservatives argue that employers should simply pay higher wages to attract American workers. This is akin to the liberal argument that employers should simply pay more to provide health insurance benefits for their workers. Both arguments ignore the economic reality that businesses must be profitable to exist. If companies pay higher labor costs, they must raise prices. If prices are too high, consumers stop buying their product. Companies can either go out of business because they have no workers or because they have no customers.

The basic idea of an immigration compromise is a simple one. First, tie other reforms to border security with established triggers. Other permanent reforms do not go into effect unless the border is secure.

Other aspects of the compromise would include a pathway to legalization (not necessarily citizenship) for current illegals. It is unrealistic to expect the deportation of the millions of illegals currently in the US, especially considering that doing so would leave many of their children, American citizens, without parents to provide for them and entitle them to benefits from an already-strained welfare system. Mass deportations would require an expensive expansion of the police state that should alarm conservatives and libertarians. Let’s acknowledge that many illegals are integrated into society and are contributing to the economy.

That doesn’t mean that there should be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. As immigration hawks point out, they did break the law and should be punished. Punishment does not have to involve deportation however. Punishment could also be in the form of delayed or denied citizenship, paying fines and back taxes, community service, probation and background checks.

To help businesses and farmers, a guest worker program should be implemented. Many American jobs, like those of Maryland’s crab fishermen, depend on a symbiotic relationship with immigrant labor. It is estimated that each visa job creates 2.5 jobs for American citizens. American crops should not be rotting in the fields because there is no one to pick them.

Priorities for immigrants should be changed to accept more immigrants who can contribute to the American economy. Our current system allows foreign students to be trained at American universities, but then denies them the ability to work for American companies. Instead, American-educated engineers and scientists are sent abroad to work for companies that compete against us. Immigrants with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math should be at the top of the list to immigrate.

In return, illegal immigration should be made a felony with a punishment severe enough to deter illegally being in the US. A better system of tracking visitors who come to the US on visas is needed to prevent overstays. The carrot-and-stick approach would make immigration easier for legitimate workers while punishing illegal immigrants more severely.

Aside from the boost to the economy, another big advantage to solving the problem of illegal migrant workers would be in a more efficient border security system. If there is a viable path for workers to enter the country, law enforcement can focus on the smugglers, violent criminals and terrorists who would still be using the back door. There would be fewer sheep to hide the wolves.

There is broad agreement from both sides on most of these details. The difficulty in reforming our broken immigration system is in having the will to buck the extremists on both sides who prefer to keep the current broken system rather than compromise to solve the problem.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

The Deportation of Buba Jabbi Is An Injustice

In a story that is becoming increasingly commonplace, ICE agents deported the father of two young American citizens to the West African nation of Gambia last week. Buba Jabbi, 41, was married to Katrina Jabbi, also an American citizen, who is pregnant with the couple's third child.

It's tempting to for many to say, “Good riddance” to Mr. Jabbi, who entered the country legally in 1995, but overstayed his tourist visa. However, a closer look reveals the broken nature of current US immigration law.

Mr. Jabbi came to the US in 1995 to attend the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and never left. Per USA Today, Jabbi eventually wound up in Wisconsin working as a truck driver. He met Katrina in 2009 and they married in 2013. They currently have two daughters, Nalia, 5, and Aisha, 1.

Jabbi tried for years to become a legal resident of the US. After filing the paperwork incorrectly, he was subjected to removal proceedings, receiving a final order of removal in 2010. His deportation was delayed for years because Gambia refused to provide travel documents for his return. While he waited, he was given orders of supervision and a work authorization. He was required to report to ICE annually. It was on one of these visits that Jabbi was detained last month and subsequently deported.

"We were confident that [Buba] doesn't have a criminal record and that he's working, there is no trouble with our family." Katrina told WAOW News in Wisconsin. "We were confident we would be able to sort this out in the next few years."

Jabbi was not accused of a crime. “Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense,” wrote Elizabeth Kozycki, an immigration attorney, on Avvo.com. The offense is a civil violation and a not a criminal one under current US law.

Nevertheless, Nolo.com points out that current US law does not provide exceptions for illegal immigrants who are married to American citizens. Illegals who have been in the US for more than a year or who have returned illegally after being deported must wait 10 years after they last left the US to apply for re-entry.

Does the penalty of deportation and exile for at least a decade fit the civil offense of overstaying a visa? It does not seem so.

Mr. Jabbi was not a criminal and had no violent history. He was gainfully employed and providing for his wife and daughters who are all US citizens. Mrs. Jabbi is employed part-time. The odds are that she will now need government assistance to provide for her children in the absence of their father.

In deporting Mr. Jabbi, the federal government not only incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs, it deprived the economy of a willing worker who was contributing to the good of the nation as well as his family. Mr. Jabbi's absence will likely add four people who had been part of a self-sustaining family to the entitlement rolls.

The lack of a father figure also leads to bad outcomes for children. Children of absent fathers often make poor life choices that lead to substance abuse and becoming single parents themselves. This perpetuates the cycle of entitlements and adds to growing national debt.

Those who say that immigrants should just “follow the law” and “get in line” fail to understand that the current law is unworkable. Even before the Trump Administration reduced the number of legal visas, wait times for legal immigrants could take decades. The State Department visa bulletin notes that an unmarried Mexican child of a US permanent resident would have to wait 21 years merely to file an application for an immigrant visa. For people who came to the US illegally, there is no clear path to legalization unless they fall within the exceptions granted by the DACA program. The future of DACA is currently in doubt as well.

While the federal government has the right and duty to control its borders and set immigration standards, it is not justice to require illegal immigrants, especially those who have American families, to do the impossible. The United States clearly has a national interest in deporting violent criminals such as members of MS-13, but what is the interest in deporting law-abiding, peaceful family men like Mr. Jabbi?

Jabbi's case is similar to that of Jorge Garcia, the married father of two from Detroit who was deported to Mexico, a country he had not seen in 30 years, in January. Garcia was brought to the US as a 10-year-old, but was too old to qualify for DACA. Garcia, who was employed as a landscaper, had no criminal record. Garcia had been working toward legal status since 2005 and had spent about $125,000 in the process.

Allowing immigrants like Mr. Jabbi to stay with their families would not require an amnesty or pardon for their immigration sins. It would require immigration reform. Reform bills proposed in the past would require illegals to undergo background checks and pay fines and back taxes as restitution for illegally entering the US.

Deportation is not the only way of making right the wrong of illegal immigration. In the case of people like Buba Jabbi, deportation is not the best course for the immigrant, their family or the United States. If conservatives can forgive President Trump for his numerous indiscretions, it seems appropriate to offer some small measure of grace to immigrants who only want to peacefully support their families in the land of opportunity. Hardworking, family-oriented people are the sort of citizens – or residents – that America should welcome.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Has A Unique Chance On Immigration

Only Nixon could go to China and it may be that only Trump can get immigration reform done.

There have been several attempts at immigration reform over the past two decades. George W. Bush tried to pass a comprehensive immigration bill in 2007 that paired a guest worker program with increased border enforcement. Six years later, in 2013, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” tried to forge a similar compromise bill. Both attempts failed, largely due to conservative opposition to “amnesty,” apparently defined by many on the right as “anything short of deportation.”

As a consequence of these failures, 16 years after the September 11 attacks, the US border is still not secure. We still don’t have a way of tracking visitors who overstay their visas, as several of the al Qaeda hijackers did. The all or nothing approach to immigration reform by Republicans has effectively kept the border open for a decade and a half.

While Republicans derided reformers as “RINOs,” Donald Trump campaigned on a hard line of immigration policy. Trump’s Wall, deportation proposals and harsh rhetoric earned him an anti-immigrant reputation even though at times he did hint that he was open to compromise.

In August 2016, Trump told Sean Hannity, “No citizenship. Let me go a step further — they'll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them.”

Trump’s policy balloon was similar to aspects of the Bush and Gang of Eight proposals. Trump’s idea was quickly retracted, but the candidate was correct that if illegal immigrants pay penalties and back taxes, then by definition it is not an amnesty. “Amnesty” is defined as “an official pardon for people who have been convicted of political offenses.” In contrast, the reform proposals were methods of paying restitution for the crime of entering the US illegally.

A year later, in September 2017, President Trump declared an end to the President Obama’s executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and gave Congress a six-month deadline to act. Congress has had a problem arriving a compromise, however.

The fundamental problem is that neither side has a supermajority and so neither can force its will on the other. For any bill to pass, there must be a working bipartisan coalition, but anti-immigration hardliners on the right insist on no path to legalization and liberals on the far left insist on no Wall. Congress is at an impasse.

In a meeting with members of Congress and the press on Tuesday, President Trump said, “We have something in common. We’d like to see this get done.” Trump called for a “bill of love,” the New York Times reported, that paired new immigration rules with a compromise on DACA.  

Trump rejected Democrat calls to make DACA a part of the government funding bill, but said that an immigration bill could be discussed “the next afternoon.” Trump signaled that the immigration bill could go beyond DACA, telling Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), “If you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat. You are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.”

The question is whether Trump can stand the heat from his base, many of who supported him largely because of his immigration stance. Regardless of whether immigration reform is good policy, the flip-flop would stand as one of the largest betrayals in American political history, akin to George Herbert Walker Bush walking back his promise of “no new taxes” and Barack Obama’s reversal of his position on same-sex marriage.

The question is whether Trump’s base would follow him to a pro-immigration reform position. For a candidate who built his campaign around the idea of a Wall and deportation, comprehensive immigration reform might be a bridge too far. Nevertheless, if the nonideological Trump can move his base to middle and forge a working coalition between Republicans and Democrats, it could breathe new life into his presidency and open many other possibilities for bipartisan cooperation.

President Trump faces the greatest risk in the attempt at finding middle ground. If the president’s base abandons him, he will be left with virtually no support and no defense against a possible impeachment. The immigration gamble could make or break the Trump legacy.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Proposal May Kill DACA Bill

Back in September, President Trump and congressional Democrats announced that they were close to a deal that would allow “Dreamers,” illegal aliens who were brought to the US as children, to stay in the country. Now a new framework issued by the White House may kill the budding agreement before it is finalized and sent to Congress.

The Trump Administration delivered a list of “principles” to congressional leaders Sunday night that included funding for Trump’s border wall, an item that Democrats say was specifically excluded from the deal in their earlier negotiations.

In a joint statement quoted by Reuters, Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.). said, “The administration can’t be serious about compromise or helping the Dreamers if they begin with a list that is anathema to the Dreamers, to the immigrant community and to the vast majority of Americans.” They continued, “The list includes the wall, which was explicitly ruled out of the negotiations. If the president was serious about protecting the Dreamers, his staff has not made a good faith effort to do so.”

In September, President Trump gave Congress six months to find a legislative solution to continue President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. A short time later, President Trump and Democrats announced that they were close to a deal on extending the program.

In addition to funding for the wall, the list also includes verification of immigration status for workers, revising the criminal code to increase penalties for immigration violations, increasing the ability of the government to deport illegal aliens, streamlining the legal process for deportations and limiting protections for asylum-seekers and unaccompanied minors.

A White House official denied that the list violates the terms of the agreement with Schumer and Pelosi. “There was a deal to work on a deal as fast as possible, that's what the deal was,” the senior administration official told CNN.

The official also said that the Administration still opposes a pathway to citizenship. “As we look to legalize the status of DACA recipients, we are not interested in granting citizenship,” he said.

It is not clear how firm the White House is in demanding the items on its wish list. Many of the items on the list would almost certainly scuttle any agreement between congressional Republicans and Democrats.

“It reads like a laundry list for comprehensive immigration reform, and if Congress has proven an extraordinary ability to do anything, it's to fail at comprehensive immigration reform,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

In September, a Morning Consult poll found that 58 percent of registered voters believe that Dreamers should be allowed to stay and be given the opportunity to become citizens. A further 18 percent said that they should be allowed to stay, but not be allowed to become citizens while 15 percent favor deportation. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Sees DACA Deal As Win-Win

Chaos broke out last night after a dinner between President Trump and Democrat congressional leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.). In the wake of Trump’s deal with Democrats on the debt ceiling, there were late-breaking reports that the three had reached an agreement to extend President Obama’s DACA program.

Fast forward a few hours to this morning and President Trump is denying almost everything. In a tweet, the president said, “No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote.”

The president continued, “The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.”

Then, in a third tweet, President Trump changes tacks. “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?” he asks. “Really!” He continued in that vein in a fourth tweet, “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security”

Taken together, the tweets indicate that President Trump may not have a final agreement on an extension of DACA, but he wants one. Even though Trump ran his campaign as a hardliner on immigration, he gave several indications that he was not firmly committed to the issue.

In August 2016, three months before the election, there were reports that Trump was flip-flopping on immigration. He denied the charge, telling Fox News at the time, “We want to come up with a fair but firm process. Fair but firm."

In December 2016, the president-elect directly addressed the “Dreamers” in his “Person of the Year” interview with Time magazine. “We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” he said. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”

The signs were there all along that President Trump would cut a deal. And there are benefits for the president if he does. Its unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, most Americans like DACA and don’t want to deport the Dreamers. For many people, how President Obama created the DACA program, usurping congressional legislative authority, is more of a problem that the program itself. And let’s be honest, many people don’t even care if Obama exceeded his executive authority to create the program. Recent polling shows that most Americans approve of DACA by double-digit margins. Even a third to a half of Republicans support continuing the program.

Not just any illegal immigrant is eligible for DACA. Candidates must have come to the country illegally or overstayed a visa when they were younger than 16 and have continuously resided in the United States since 2007. The must be in school, have a GED or high school diploma or have been honorably discharged from the US military. A felony or more than three misdemeanors is not allowed. Participants also had to pay $980 in initial fees and $465 for renewals, all for a program that did not give official legal status. Whatever DACA was, it was not amnesty. The prospect of prosecution and deportation was still there.

Most voters also approve of President Trump’s first deal with the Democrats. Rasmussen found that two-thirds of voters think it’s good for the country if Trump and the Democrats work together.

President Trump likely sees a DACA deal as a win-win. He can become more popular by reaching across the aisle to enact a policy that he likes anyway. From a pragmatic perspective, the Republicans have been unable to get anything done, so a pivot to the left makes sense.

Could Republicans block collaboration between Trump and the Democrats? Assuming the Democrats all vote together, in the Senate, a deal would need 13 Republican votes for cloture and three votes for passage. In the House, 23 Republican votes would be needed for a simple majority. Between Republican moderates who support DACA and Trump supporters who will follow the president’s lead, a Trump-Democrat deal would be hard to stop.

The problem with a nonideological president is that his principles and platform are not firmly grounded. If he wants to accomplish things – anything – and be popular, he won’t necessarily continue to dance with the voters who brought him to the Washington.

And what of the Trump base that voted for the Wall and deportation?

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,” Trump famously said of his base during the campaign.

His pivot on DACA may be about to put that theory to the test.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Immigration Bill Represents Fundamental Shift in GOP

Fresh from their defeat on Obamacare, the Republicans have decided to throw caution to the wind and touch a third rail of politics. A bill introduced into the Senate by Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) and supported by President Trump would overhaul the U.S. immigration system. The bill would shift priorities for immigrants to an employment basis while reducing the number of legal immigrants overall.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the RAISE Act, “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy,” would replace the current application process and reallocate the current number of employment-based green cards. Under the new system, green cards would be issued to highly skilled workers, English speakers and immigrants with the financial means to avoid becoming welfare recipients. The bill would also make it more difficult for current legal US residents to get green cards for extended families and eliminate the lottery system in which immigrants from underrepresented countries can win a green card.

Per the Journal’s report, the US currently issues about 1 million green cards annually. Of these, the majority, about two-thirds, are issued on the basis of family connections to US citizens and legal residents. 140,000 green cards are employment based and the remainder are issued by lotteries and to refugees.

While the bill would reprioritize green cards for business purposes, the overall goal seems to be to reduce legal immigration. An aide to Tom Cotton cited by the Journal said that the legislation would reduce immigration by 41 percent or 638,000 people in its first year. After 10 years, immigration would be halved from current levels, a decrease of about 540,000 immigrants annually.

In a press release, Cotton said that the bill would increase wages for blue-collar workers. “For decades, our immigration system has been completely divorced from the needs of our economy, and working Americans’ wages have suffered as a result. Our legislation will set things right,” Cotton said. “We will build an immigration system that raises working wages, creates jobs, and gives every American a fair shot at creating wealth, whether your family came over on the Mayflower or just took the oath of citizenship.”

“Right now, our current immigration system does not meet the needs of our economy,” Perdue said. “We want to welcome talented individuals from around the world who wish to come to the United States legally to work and make a better life for themselves. The RAISE Act will create a skills-based system that is more responsive to the needs of our economy and preserves the quality of jobs available to American workers.”

President Trump has indicated his support, even introducing the bill in a White House press conference. “For decades, the U.S. has operated a very low-skilled immigration system. It has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers,” Trump said.

The bill is likely to cause more division within the already fractured GOP. The pro-business wing of the party typically favors looser restrictions on immigration while protectionists want to reduce the number of immigrants competing for American jobs.  

Exit polling from Republican primaries in 2016 indicated that immigration was a minor issue and that voters were split on whether to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but the RAISE Act goes farther than the most recent attempts at immigration reform. Rather than dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, it attempts to restrict and reduce legal immigration.

While prioritizing visas based on the needs of American companies is a good idea, reducing the number of visas overall is not. A major driver of illegal immigration has been the long wait and difficult process to come to the U.S. legally. Business Insider notes that immigrating legally can take years or decades and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. Making it more difficult to come to the U.S. legally will make illegal immigration more attractive.

Making immigration more difficult also hurts American companies. Shortages of qualified workers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields means that many American tech companies rely on highly skilled foreign workers, but low-skilled immigrants are also needed. In the past, immigration crackdowns have led to shortages of farm workers and the loss of billions of dollars in crops. The LA Times reported in March that Napa Valley farmers were offering $16 per hour for farm workers with no takers.

Cotton and Perdue and probably correct that reducing immigration will increase wages for American workers. Economic law dictates that as the supply of available workers decreases, the price of labor will rise, but that is only half the story. The other half is that prices of goods, such as farm-grown food, and services will also rise to compensate for the higher cost of production.

Some companies may choose to move operations outside of the United States where labor is cheaper. Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Uber are among the American tech companies expanding operations in Canada where it is easier to hire the skilled immigrants that they need.

The economic fallacy of restricting immigration to raise wages is similar to the liberal policy of artificially raising the minimum wage. Even if wages go up under the plan, gains for blue-collar workers are likely to evaporate due to the higher cost of living.

In the end, the bill will likely go nowhere. Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture and no Democrats are likely to support the measure. Many Republicans will probably also oppose the curbs to legal immigration.

The RAISE Act has some good aspects, but, at its core, the bill represents a shift in Republican attitudes. For years, Republicans have argued that they were against illegal immigration, but in favor of legal immigration. No more. The Cotton-Perdue bill can only be considered to be anti- legal immigration. 

Originally published on The Resurgent