Why does "pro-immigration" need to entail making illegal immigration easier (e..g, a less secure border)? If a candidate ever wants to make a political breakthrough on the issue they should take the stance of "less illegal, more legal." Otherwise we will remain stuck in this inefficient stalemate.
Obama tried this. He dramatically increased border security to show good faith with Republicans when trying to negotiate his immigration bill - the one that got 58 votes in the Senate but couldn't survive a filibuster.
Some on the right try to argue that Obama was just changing definitions to juice the numbers, but enough Hispanics in Chicago noticed it that they've protested naming a school after Obama.
58 votes in the Senate is pretty remarkable though, and in a non-Obama environment they probably could have made minor adjustments to it and gotten it passed. It's unfortunate that the lesson Democrats took from that fight was to shift far to the left and adopt a position on immigration unpalatable to anyone outside of Democratic party hardliners.
The fringes have such power it's nearly impossible to see sensical compromises occur. You can go back to Reagan who expanded immigration with the understanding secure borders would be maintained. Politics is simply broken.
A border wall is an utterly useless and horrendously wasteful fantasy. We don't live in a George R.R. Martin novel. Whether we construct one or not has approximately zero effect on unauthorized immigration. What it does have an effect on is vulnerable ecosystems and gorgeous desert landscapes.
That's up for debate and you can find any opinion you want from any expert you want. I have no idea. In my experience, 75% of those against a border wall are unenthusiastic about new border security measures in general. Certainly this administration does not seem interested in border security as evidenced by the stats.
To me, most of the current system is based on a set of laws written to create an explicitly and illegitimately racial discrimination. And the predictable result is that those laws were easy for Trump to abuse in order to commit the abuses he did.
Thus, I honestly do question why crossing the border has to be a federal crime rather than an administrative offense. Not entirely out of humanitarian reasons, but because I don’t think we’ve ever actually had the debate over whether it’s a good idea, separately from the racist reasons that were used to justify it in the past.
Given my druthers, I’d rather we start from the laissez-faire immigration system my ancestors faced in the 1820s. They only had to wait three years for citizenship! And THEN we can go adding administrative offenses and felonies and sensible “total immigration per year” quotas and so on. But IMO, the entire thing desperately needs to be re-anchored. And just because something is “illegal” today, doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought to be from first principles. Yes, we need a border, and we need to defend it, but there are a million other ways to accomplish that legally besides how we currently are failing to do so.
Why should "whoever manages to get across the border" be the defining variable in who immigrates? That seems like the least-relevant variable I can think of. Which is why it leaves a bad taste for moderates.
If we want skills let's select for those skills (e.g., we absolutely need more doctors).
If we want to help those in need, let's have a clear refugee policy (which is difficult to game), with annual targets, and priority given to people from countries the US has actively made a mess of (e.g., Afghanistan).
I think most voters want a policy that is win-win for Americans and immigrants, which is thoughtful, and which is difficult to game (which we all know is rampant currently).
It seems to me that you’re the one making it the defining variable. Why have any restrictions in the first place? “Because they’re already in place” is not a good enough answer. We had plenty of generations of high immigration with very few restrictions, and they… made America great.
You’re approaching this debate as if we’re just quibbling over details. But that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying the details are irrelevant because the entire foundation is compromised, and has been for a long time. I honestly don’t care about the particular composition of *who* gets in, because I subscribe to the One Billion Americans thesis that only significant population growth can make us competitive with China, and we shouldn’t be all that picky in such a context.
I typically aspire to move the ball incrementally forward in a productive direction when it comes to policy. You're hoping for a touchdown pass, which is fine. Problem is one group wants near-unlimited immigration, while another wants highly-selective immigration. The debate breaks down at that point because these are basically philosophical arguments, each with pros/cons, and no real way to determine what works best.
I consider myself centrist when it comes to immigration. If you wanted to convince me of a big shift to more immigration i'd want safeguards and well-aligned incentives in return. Perhaps the first-generation of immigrants should not have access to social benefits (to align incentives) and perhaps there should be pre-defined success metrics, which if not met entails immigration automatically scaling back.
In today's political environment this level of policy sophistication is basically impossible. Which is why i'm looking for incremental progress.
Personally I see the logic of competition and solidarity through a very different lens than you do.
To me, the worst aspect of the immigration is the H-1B visa. _Not_ because it admits skilled workers who compete in the market where I sell my labor -- there's been a perpetual shortage of people with that kind of engineering skills basically forever, it totally makes sense to import people who can do the work. No, the problem is that it creates second-class citizens in our workplaces, and undermines everyone's negotiating power, exactly the way that the existence of menial undocumented immigrant labor -- people who can't complain to the cops about wage theft or other abuses -- undermines the power of legal workers. You're far less likely to agitate for a raise, or just for hiring enough people to meet the workload without working 60 hour weeks, if you're just a _little_ afraid that the boss can just fire you and get somebody from India, China, or Russia, to take your place.
I had a roommate who was on an H-1B whose company folded, and she couldn't find a new sponsor in time, so she was shipped back to India -- which frankly was a loss for the US, because she was brilliant. If somebody's good enough to come here to work for some specific company, they're good enough to live and work here, period.
No one I know is considering immigrating to the US since the last 2-3 years. They choose Europe or Australia instead.
Immigrants have got the message loud and clear - a large portion of the country dislikes or fears us, and neither republicans nor democrats understand or care about immigration in any true sense beyond publicity. Green cards can take 10+ years, even at that point there are no guarantees. During those 10+ years, if you are unemployed for 30+ days you are fucked. You can study here, work here, raise a family, pay taxes and basically become American in every way that matters but still have no right to entry or to start a business or vote, get treated like shit at the border and be thrown out at any time. H1Bs literally don't buy furniture for years because if you lose your job, your options are to scramble and find one before the I765 expires or leave the country.
These are all ground realities of the details of immigration that don't change in the slightest no matter which president in charge. Because the politicians are uninformed, unwilling or unable to materially affect the bureaucracies they nominally govern. The leaders don't seem to understand the difference between governance and public relations anymore. The politicians win and lose based on social media and wapo opeds, but there is no actual change in governance - no one is actually behind the wheel. Welcome to the LARP world.
The Democrats can’t do anything if they are not in power. Immigration is an issue with some small upside but a huge downside with respect to maintaining political power. The pro-immigration bloc that has immigration as a make or break issue is pretty small - certainly much smaller than the ant-immigration bloc. The pro-immigration bloc should go about changing the hearts and mind of the American people on this issue and not attack the Democratic Party. The Democrats support immigration but they’re not going to commit suicide over it.
Whether an immigration reform bill would help Democrats now or Democrats now is largely irrelevant in that the numbers in Congress for such legislation simply don't exist at present. It would be an uphill struggle in the House (Dems have a 5 vote margin) and there's no way *Senate* Dems could maintain unity to force it through on a 51 vote basis.
I should add I'm not pessimistic about the chances of a pro-immigration bill getting to a Democratic president's desk in the medium term. But the current Congress? Not happening.
I really can't see the idea that college-educated Americans are more restrictionist than others, or feel less solidarity with immigrants and refugees.
Almost all the information I've seen indicates that being college-educated correlates with an openness to experience that encourages support for immigrants and immigration. Here's an example from a Pew study --
While there might be a backlash to H1Bs on an individual level, it doesn't seem to substantially inform peoples' politics either. You yourself have made a post about how the tech workers are very left-leaning overall. If you look at the cities with lots of skilled immigrants, they're some of the most liberal places in the country. (If anything, I imagine that working with people from different countries creates more social bonds that increase support for skilled immigrants.)
>>>I really can't see the idea that college-educated Americans are more restrictionist than others, or feel less solidarity with immigrants and refugees.<<<
Agreed. I think Noah's pressing a bit on this particular bit of speculation...
One of the few good things about the Cold War was a bipartisan recognition that competition for citizens was a good way to combat authoritarianism. East Germany lost 20% of its population in a decade. It sent a message.
Now we're entering an era where populations are peaking and heading into decline, this should be an even more powerful and useful strategy.
We have a massive policy apparatus dedicated to pressuring Cuba's system. We've studied the boatlift and it had no negative impacts on Miami. But we tell their refugees not to come. We criticize China's behavior in Hong Kong. Do we create a new visa like the UK? No, we get Biden's Hong Kong "safe haven" proposal, just an 18 month visa extension for people already here, does nothing for anyone currently in HK.
Not to mention Afghanistan. If 90% of that country doesn't want to live in a caliphate... maybe if we can't secure the territory, humanity would be better off if we just helped them leave.
We have to be conscious of the sheer weight of the bureaucratic process when talking about changes to the immigration process. After 13 years of living in this country I finally took the oath to naturalize as a US citizen this week. USCIS officer interviewing me took every chance she could to lament about their bad technology, arcane process and high work load. It’s easy to issue an executive order choking a piece of the system but it’s a lot harder to issue another order to unclog it.
I also suspect the wariness about admitting more refugees has a lot to do with the administrative system’s capacity to process them. The process very likely does not do anything meaningful on vetting people that cannot be automated and expedited. But Biden and his team wouldn’t want to change it too much too fast because all it takes is one [inevitable] fall through the cracks to end them politically. A better system doesn’t have to be less secure and won’t be but someone has to take that responsibility and no one is in the mood to do so.
"...like abortion, something to be yelled about and fought bitterly about on the margins, even as both sides are too afraid to take dramatic action to upset the status quo."
Really? It seems to me that the next Supreme Court ruling on abortion, if the outcome is what I expect, will be immediately followed by abortion being made outright illegal in about half the country.
You think we have a lot of partisan animosity now? Just wait.
I support Roe v Wade, but if it's overturned I think politicians will find themselves in a bind at the state level. Do they follow through on their maximalist positions and risk a backlash from the suburbs?
I agree that most liberals, sadly, vastly overestimate the impact of overturning Roe. America wouldn’t turn into a dystopia, and most liberals wouldn’t even notice Roe’d been overturned.
I can’t say I find many issues with Noah’s rather pessimistic take here. The only thing I will add, though, is: it’s still very early in Biden’s presidency.
For the record I find this administration an almost infinite improvement over TFG. But one criticism I will level is: they do seem excessively timid on a lot of issues. Sure, politics ain’t beanbag, but sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out not to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term.
“sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out not to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term”
That’s a platitude that sounds smart but when you think about it, doesn’t mean much. I can just as well say “sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term”.
What would be more convincing is evidence to support your viewpoint.
From the evidence I’ve seen, I would say Biden is doing the best he can with the hand he’s dealt.
Keep in mind that the median voter is older than average, non-college-educated, white, and fairly conservative on immigration and many social issues.
Then also keep in mind that Dems are handicapped by the GOP bias in the electoral college, gerrymandering in the House, and hugely handicapped by the big GOP bias (towards whiter smaller more rural states) in the Senate.
So the tipping point voter is even more likely to be older, non-college-educated, white, and more conservative on immigration and many social issues.
Very timely article as always Noah. As an overconfident educated Latin American wanting to make more money, I do wonder: is there a rich country that is opening up a bit more to skilled inmigrants?
Your focus on immigration is laudable, but we are in mulit crisis times. Reality - 30 years bipartisan immigration reform always getting axed at last minute by GOP (and many Ds of course in conservative regions). The South really did win the Civil War. When you are dealing with a violent organized crime syndicate political party willing the kill its own citizens and with vast media resources and detached/distracted electorate - exactly how do you remedy this? Biden could fight tooth and nail on improving immigration - in the midst of social breakdown with 10 other pressing democracy-destroying challenges. Sandy Hook response tells you everything you need to know about America. So does 20 years in Afghanistan. What is most pressing? My vote is fighting the looming gerrymandering by GOP - that is what is really going to doom us. And it's getting little attn. It will be more devastating then all the anti voting bills.
Christ our president is such a coward. I really hate how the dems policy choice of the day is based on popular opinion polling rather than what's morally right/principled and what the base of the Democratic Party actually wants. If the dems based their policy on the latter they would be much better for it; public opinion is fickle and has a way of changing. Instead the party continues to forever try to please David Brooks et al.
“If the dems based their policy on the latter they“
. . would lose political power.
Fixed that for you.
At least when it comes to immigration and most social issues (the median voter tends to be more liberal on economic issues).
And where is your evidence that public opinion is fickle? Other than gay marriage and pot legalization, I struggle to think of any issue where there has been a huge change in public opinion. The breakdown on viewpoints on abortion has budge all of a few percentage points over decades.
Furthermore, even if public opinion does change, why do you not consider the possibility that it would shift more conservative on issues?
I’m broadly in agreement. However, I’d like to draw a distinction between what I think of as political pragmatism and ideology. An ideology takes varying inputs and consistently spits out the same output. Is the economy weak? Lower taxes! Is the economy roaring? Lower taxes! Wake up with a hangover? Lower taxes! And when it comes to today’s America, the question of immigration is always met with the same ideological responses. It would be merely boring were it not one of the elemental forces (along with media and the new Gilded Age) driving events.
Practically speaking, I accept the economic arguments, even when they glide silently past certain issues. Yet for over two decades I’ve watched as politicians in both the US and Europe have continued to push immigration despite growing objections, seemingly oblivious to how the issue was empowering elements of the Right and far Right. And now that many of us ache for the West to take in Afghani refugees, the situation has grown so toxic that even decent men like Biden hesitate. I blame the Left. Had they pumped the brakes now and then, I believe we’d be less in danger of jerking violently to the Right now. If Noah’s contention is correct that support for immigration on the Left is wide but shallow (and I suspect it is), then ideology needs to be thrown overboard and serious consideration given for how to right the ship of state.
Fully agree and this applies to Right and Left on various topics. Once you forgo logic, and politicize issues instead, the quality of thinking (and policy) on that issue basically plummets.
At the risk of nipping the start of a beautiful friendship in the bud, I would quibble over the use of the words politicization and ideology. For me, politicization is in the dynamics of politics, the cut and thrust of sticking it to the other guy for short-term gain, while ideology is the scleroderma (had to look up the noun for that!) of political thought. God knows that both are bad. Vaccination is an example of politicization, and I find it all too easy to imagine vastly different takes on the issue had events flowed differently. Taxation, on the Right, and the various leftwing pieties involving sex, race and culture are examples of ideology—no true believer will ever change his mind. Logic is missing in politicization, but everywhere in ideology. Our problem today is less one of logic and more one of practical wisdom (and a shared set of values on which to apply it).
It puts me in mind of an essay from Montaigne where he wonders how it is that we are repulsed by the stink of other’s shit while thinking that our own smells just fine.
It's all hard to define, but i know politicization when i see it. My frustration is when win-win, centrist solutions are basically impossible because they are unacceptable to either (or both) fringe. I see "more legal, less illegal" immigration falling into this category.
I don't think the Left could ever summon the audacity to pass a true, comprehensive solution, while the Right finds the issue too convenient to even consider solving it.
The way I see the matter, immigrants overwhelmingly arrive for jobs, and as long as people are willing to employ illegals, then plenty will take the risks. So raise the stakes for the employers. I'd have a national ID (mark of the beast!) required for any paid work, with the full onus on the employer. Make the fine something with bite, say $10k per illegal, with the money collected in full by the person who informed, even if it be on himself. Rat out a sweatshop owner and retire! Such a state would change the dynamic of everyone in interesting ways, I suspect, some of which would be to RAISE the profile of immigrants. Today, one can rail against illegal immigration while enjoying the fruits of cheap labor. And, yeah, total amnesty.
Have you met the average American? They don’t deserve to live in the greatest country on earth.
Why does "pro-immigration" need to entail making illegal immigration easier (e..g, a less secure border)? If a candidate ever wants to make a political breakthrough on the issue they should take the stance of "less illegal, more legal." Otherwise we will remain stuck in this inefficient stalemate.
Obama tried this. He dramatically increased border security to show good faith with Republicans when trying to negotiate his immigration bill - the one that got 58 votes in the Senate but couldn't survive a filibuster.
Some on the right try to argue that Obama was just changing definitions to juice the numbers, but enough Hispanics in Chicago noticed it that they've protested naming a school after Obama.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/546057-latino-activists-protest-renaming-school-after-the-obamas
58 votes in the Senate is pretty remarkable though, and in a non-Obama environment they probably could have made minor adjustments to it and gotten it passed. It's unfortunate that the lesson Democrats took from that fight was to shift far to the left and adopt a position on immigration unpalatable to anyone outside of Democratic party hardliners.
The fringes have such power it's nearly impossible to see sensical compromises occur. You can go back to Reagan who expanded immigration with the understanding secure borders would be maintained. Politics is simply broken.
>>Why does "pro-immigration" need to entail making illegal immigration easier (e..g, a less secure border)?<<<
It doesn't. Is someone arguing otherwise?
Was reacting to Noah's disappointment that we had been constructing a border wall.
A border wall is an utterly useless and horrendously wasteful fantasy. We don't live in a George R.R. Martin novel. Whether we construct one or not has approximately zero effect on unauthorized immigration. What it does have an effect on is vulnerable ecosystems and gorgeous desert landscapes.
That's up for debate and you can find any opinion you want from any expert you want. I have no idea. In my experience, 75% of those against a border wall are unenthusiastic about new border security measures in general. Certainly this administration does not seem interested in border security as evidenced by the stats.
To me, most of the current system is based on a set of laws written to create an explicitly and illegitimately racial discrimination. And the predictable result is that those laws were easy for Trump to abuse in order to commit the abuses he did.
Thus, I honestly do question why crossing the border has to be a federal crime rather than an administrative offense. Not entirely out of humanitarian reasons, but because I don’t think we’ve ever actually had the debate over whether it’s a good idea, separately from the racist reasons that were used to justify it in the past.
Given my druthers, I’d rather we start from the laissez-faire immigration system my ancestors faced in the 1820s. They only had to wait three years for citizenship! And THEN we can go adding administrative offenses and felonies and sensible “total immigration per year” quotas and so on. But IMO, the entire thing desperately needs to be re-anchored. And just because something is “illegal” today, doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought to be from first principles. Yes, we need a border, and we need to defend it, but there are a million other ways to accomplish that legally besides how we currently are failing to do so.
Why should "whoever manages to get across the border" be the defining variable in who immigrates? That seems like the least-relevant variable I can think of. Which is why it leaves a bad taste for moderates.
If we want skills let's select for those skills (e.g., we absolutely need more doctors).
If we want to help those in need, let's have a clear refugee policy (which is difficult to game), with annual targets, and priority given to people from countries the US has actively made a mess of (e.g., Afghanistan).
I think most voters want a policy that is win-win for Americans and immigrants, which is thoughtful, and which is difficult to game (which we all know is rampant currently).
It seems to me that you’re the one making it the defining variable. Why have any restrictions in the first place? “Because they’re already in place” is not a good enough answer. We had plenty of generations of high immigration with very few restrictions, and they… made America great.
You’re approaching this debate as if we’re just quibbling over details. But that’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying the details are irrelevant because the entire foundation is compromised, and has been for a long time. I honestly don’t care about the particular composition of *who* gets in, because I subscribe to the One Billion Americans thesis that only significant population growth can make us competitive with China, and we shouldn’t be all that picky in such a context.
Sure, why have borders at all? or laws?
I typically aspire to move the ball incrementally forward in a productive direction when it comes to policy. You're hoping for a touchdown pass, which is fine. Problem is one group wants near-unlimited immigration, while another wants highly-selective immigration. The debate breaks down at that point because these are basically philosophical arguments, each with pros/cons, and no real way to determine what works best.
I consider myself centrist when it comes to immigration. If you wanted to convince me of a big shift to more immigration i'd want safeguards and well-aligned incentives in return. Perhaps the first-generation of immigrants should not have access to social benefits (to align incentives) and perhaps there should be pre-defined success metrics, which if not met entails immigration automatically scaling back.
In today's political environment this level of policy sophistication is basically impossible. Which is why i'm looking for incremental progress.
Personally I see the logic of competition and solidarity through a very different lens than you do.
To me, the worst aspect of the immigration is the H-1B visa. _Not_ because it admits skilled workers who compete in the market where I sell my labor -- there's been a perpetual shortage of people with that kind of engineering skills basically forever, it totally makes sense to import people who can do the work. No, the problem is that it creates second-class citizens in our workplaces, and undermines everyone's negotiating power, exactly the way that the existence of menial undocumented immigrant labor -- people who can't complain to the cops about wage theft or other abuses -- undermines the power of legal workers. You're far less likely to agitate for a raise, or just for hiring enough people to meet the workload without working 60 hour weeks, if you're just a _little_ afraid that the boss can just fire you and get somebody from India, China, or Russia, to take your place.
I had a roommate who was on an H-1B whose company folded, and she couldn't find a new sponsor in time, so she was shipped back to India -- which frankly was a loss for the US, because she was brilliant. If somebody's good enough to come here to work for some specific company, they're good enough to live and work here, period.
No one I know is considering immigrating to the US since the last 2-3 years. They choose Europe or Australia instead.
Immigrants have got the message loud and clear - a large portion of the country dislikes or fears us, and neither republicans nor democrats understand or care about immigration in any true sense beyond publicity. Green cards can take 10+ years, even at that point there are no guarantees. During those 10+ years, if you are unemployed for 30+ days you are fucked. You can study here, work here, raise a family, pay taxes and basically become American in every way that matters but still have no right to entry or to start a business or vote, get treated like shit at the border and be thrown out at any time. H1Bs literally don't buy furniture for years because if you lose your job, your options are to scramble and find one before the I765 expires or leave the country.
These are all ground realities of the details of immigration that don't change in the slightest no matter which president in charge. Because the politicians are uninformed, unwilling or unable to materially affect the bureaucracies they nominally govern. The leaders don't seem to understand the difference between governance and public relations anymore. The politicians win and lose based on social media and wapo opeds, but there is no actual change in governance - no one is actually behind the wheel. Welcome to the LARP world.
The Democrats can’t do anything if they are not in power. Immigration is an issue with some small upside but a huge downside with respect to maintaining political power. The pro-immigration bloc that has immigration as a make or break issue is pretty small - certainly much smaller than the ant-immigration bloc. The pro-immigration bloc should go about changing the hearts and mind of the American people on this issue and not attack the Democratic Party. The Democrats support immigration but they’re not going to commit suicide over it.
Whether an immigration reform bill would help Democrats now or Democrats now is largely irrelevant in that the numbers in Congress for such legislation simply don't exist at present. It would be an uphill struggle in the House (Dems have a 5 vote margin) and there's no way *Senate* Dems could maintain unity to force it through on a 51 vote basis.
I should add I'm not pessimistic about the chances of a pro-immigration bill getting to a Democratic president's desk in the medium term. But the current Congress? Not happening.
I really can't see the idea that college-educated Americans are more restrictionist than others, or feel less solidarity with immigrants and refugees.
Almost all the information I've seen indicates that being college-educated correlates with an openness to experience that encourages support for immigrants and immigration. Here's an example from a Pew study --
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/views-on-race-and-immigration/
While there might be a backlash to H1Bs on an individual level, it doesn't seem to substantially inform peoples' politics either. You yourself have made a post about how the tech workers are very left-leaning overall. If you look at the cities with lots of skilled immigrants, they're some of the most liberal places in the country. (If anything, I imagine that working with people from different countries creates more social bonds that increase support for skilled immigrants.)
>>>I really can't see the idea that college-educated Americans are more restrictionist than others, or feel less solidarity with immigrants and refugees.<<<
Agreed. I think Noah's pressing a bit on this particular bit of speculation...
One of the few good things about the Cold War was a bipartisan recognition that competition for citizens was a good way to combat authoritarianism. East Germany lost 20% of its population in a decade. It sent a message.
Now we're entering an era where populations are peaking and heading into decline, this should be an even more powerful and useful strategy.
We have a massive policy apparatus dedicated to pressuring Cuba's system. We've studied the boatlift and it had no negative impacts on Miami. But we tell their refugees not to come. We criticize China's behavior in Hong Kong. Do we create a new visa like the UK? No, we get Biden's Hong Kong "safe haven" proposal, just an 18 month visa extension for people already here, does nothing for anyone currently in HK.
Not to mention Afghanistan. If 90% of that country doesn't want to live in a caliphate... maybe if we can't secure the territory, humanity would be better off if we just helped them leave.
It is exasperating.
We have to be conscious of the sheer weight of the bureaucratic process when talking about changes to the immigration process. After 13 years of living in this country I finally took the oath to naturalize as a US citizen this week. USCIS officer interviewing me took every chance she could to lament about their bad technology, arcane process and high work load. It’s easy to issue an executive order choking a piece of the system but it’s a lot harder to issue another order to unclog it.
I also suspect the wariness about admitting more refugees has a lot to do with the administrative system’s capacity to process them. The process very likely does not do anything meaningful on vetting people that cannot be automated and expedited. But Biden and his team wouldn’t want to change it too much too fast because all it takes is one [inevitable] fall through the cracks to end them politically. A better system doesn’t have to be less secure and won’t be but someone has to take that responsibility and no one is in the mood to do so.
Congratulations.
"...like abortion, something to be yelled about and fought bitterly about on the margins, even as both sides are too afraid to take dramatic action to upset the status quo."
Really? It seems to me that the next Supreme Court ruling on abortion, if the outcome is what I expect, will be immediately followed by abortion being made outright illegal in about half the country.
You think we have a lot of partisan animosity now? Just wait.
If abortion dominates the political debate in 2022, that's very bad news for Republicans.
Sort of. David French did an analysis suggesting that overturning SCOTUS precedent would only roll back abortions by 13%.
https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/do-pro-lifers-who-reject-trump-have
I support Roe v Wade, but if it's overturned I think politicians will find themselves in a bind at the state level. Do they follow through on their maximalist positions and risk a backlash from the suburbs?
I agree that most liberals, sadly, vastly overestimate the impact of overturning Roe. America wouldn’t turn into a dystopia, and most liberals wouldn’t even notice Roe’d been overturned.
Is it the right use of the phrase "third rail"? Immigration isn't untouchable, deadly subject - it is one of the hotly & openly debated issues.
I can’t say I find many issues with Noah’s rather pessimistic take here. The only thing I will add, though, is: it’s still very early in Biden’s presidency.
For the record I find this administration an almost infinite improvement over TFG. But one criticism I will level is: they do seem excessively timid on a lot of issues. Sure, politics ain’t beanbag, but sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out not to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term.
“sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out not to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term”
That’s a platitude that sounds smart but when you think about it, doesn’t mean much. I can just as well say “sometimes doing the seemingly safe thing in political terms turns out to be the smart thing in political terms over the longer-term”.
What would be more convincing is evidence to support your viewpoint.
From the evidence I’ve seen, I would say Biden is doing the best he can with the hand he’s dealt.
Keep in mind that the median voter is older than average, non-college-educated, white, and fairly conservative on immigration and many social issues.
Then also keep in mind that Dems are handicapped by the GOP bias in the electoral college, gerrymandering in the House, and hugely handicapped by the big GOP bias (towards whiter smaller more rural states) in the Senate.
So the tipping point voter is even more likely to be older, non-college-educated, white, and more conservative on immigration and many social issues.
Very timely article as always Noah. As an overconfident educated Latin American wanting to make more money, I do wonder: is there a rich country that is opening up a bit more to skilled inmigrants?
Canada
Thanks Noah. I'll check.
Your focus on immigration is laudable, but we are in mulit crisis times. Reality - 30 years bipartisan immigration reform always getting axed at last minute by GOP (and many Ds of course in conservative regions). The South really did win the Civil War. When you are dealing with a violent organized crime syndicate political party willing the kill its own citizens and with vast media resources and detached/distracted electorate - exactly how do you remedy this? Biden could fight tooth and nail on improving immigration - in the midst of social breakdown with 10 other pressing democracy-destroying challenges. Sandy Hook response tells you everything you need to know about America. So does 20 years in Afghanistan. What is most pressing? My vote is fighting the looming gerrymandering by GOP - that is what is really going to doom us. And it's getting little attn. It will be more devastating then all the anti voting bills.
Christ our president is such a coward. I really hate how the dems policy choice of the day is based on popular opinion polling rather than what's morally right/principled and what the base of the Democratic Party actually wants. If the dems based their policy on the latter they would be much better for it; public opinion is fickle and has a way of changing. Instead the party continues to forever try to please David Brooks et al.
“If the dems based their policy on the latter they“
. . would lose political power.
Fixed that for you.
At least when it comes to immigration and most social issues (the median voter tends to be more liberal on economic issues).
And where is your evidence that public opinion is fickle? Other than gay marriage and pot legalization, I struggle to think of any issue where there has been a huge change in public opinion. The breakdown on viewpoints on abortion has budge all of a few percentage points over decades.
Furthermore, even if public opinion does change, why do you not consider the possibility that it would shift more conservative on issues?
Immigrants aren't an endless supply of labor. The bucket will dry up, or the skills available won't match the skills required for the economy.
Low birth rates seem as much of a problem as low immigration rates.
I’m broadly in agreement. However, I’d like to draw a distinction between what I think of as political pragmatism and ideology. An ideology takes varying inputs and consistently spits out the same output. Is the economy weak? Lower taxes! Is the economy roaring? Lower taxes! Wake up with a hangover? Lower taxes! And when it comes to today’s America, the question of immigration is always met with the same ideological responses. It would be merely boring were it not one of the elemental forces (along with media and the new Gilded Age) driving events.
Practically speaking, I accept the economic arguments, even when they glide silently past certain issues. Yet for over two decades I’ve watched as politicians in both the US and Europe have continued to push immigration despite growing objections, seemingly oblivious to how the issue was empowering elements of the Right and far Right. And now that many of us ache for the West to take in Afghani refugees, the situation has grown so toxic that even decent men like Biden hesitate. I blame the Left. Had they pumped the brakes now and then, I believe we’d be less in danger of jerking violently to the Right now. If Noah’s contention is correct that support for immigration on the Left is wide but shallow (and I suspect it is), then ideology needs to be thrown overboard and serious consideration given for how to right the ship of state.
Fully agree and this applies to Right and Left on various topics. Once you forgo logic, and politicize issues instead, the quality of thinking (and policy) on that issue basically plummets.
At the risk of nipping the start of a beautiful friendship in the bud, I would quibble over the use of the words politicization and ideology. For me, politicization is in the dynamics of politics, the cut and thrust of sticking it to the other guy for short-term gain, while ideology is the scleroderma (had to look up the noun for that!) of political thought. God knows that both are bad. Vaccination is an example of politicization, and I find it all too easy to imagine vastly different takes on the issue had events flowed differently. Taxation, on the Right, and the various leftwing pieties involving sex, race and culture are examples of ideology—no true believer will ever change his mind. Logic is missing in politicization, but everywhere in ideology. Our problem today is less one of logic and more one of practical wisdom (and a shared set of values on which to apply it).
It puts me in mind of an essay from Montaigne where he wonders how it is that we are repulsed by the stink of other’s shit while thinking that our own smells just fine.
It's all hard to define, but i know politicization when i see it. My frustration is when win-win, centrist solutions are basically impossible because they are unacceptable to either (or both) fringe. I see "more legal, less illegal" immigration falling into this category.
I don't think the Left could ever summon the audacity to pass a true, comprehensive solution, while the Right finds the issue too convenient to even consider solving it.
The way I see the matter, immigrants overwhelmingly arrive for jobs, and as long as people are willing to employ illegals, then plenty will take the risks. So raise the stakes for the employers. I'd have a national ID (mark of the beast!) required for any paid work, with the full onus on the employer. Make the fine something with bite, say $10k per illegal, with the money collected in full by the person who informed, even if it be on himself. Rat out a sweatshop owner and retire! Such a state would change the dynamic of everyone in interesting ways, I suspect, some of which would be to RAISE the profile of immigrants. Today, one can rail against illegal immigration while enjoying the fruits of cheap labor. And, yeah, total amnesty.