I agree the Democratic nominee needs to advocate common sense plans to address the many issues subsumed in the topic of “immigration”. Trump is succeeding in making scapegoats out of desperate brown-skinned migrants while distracting from his destructive kleptocracy.
A starting point might be the comprehensive immigration reform legislation Democrats and most Senate Republicans endorsed in 2013.
It failed because the Republican House refused to allow a vote on it.
Most Americans - not all, to be sure - are inclined to favor pragmatic ideas that are fair and humane. Plans that protects Dreamers, grant a path to citizenship for long time residents who are productive members of our society, hold employers accountable, properly staff asylum courts to handle surges, and treat all persons humanely are feasible and would likely appeal to the majority.
It’s also noteworthy Trump and the GOP Congress he had for two years did zilch to address the southern border problems he now counts on for re-election - apart from sweetheart taxpayer-funded government contracts to corporations and private entities to build more camps and get richer off of human misery.
11
No one is being honest here. Democrats are being dishonest in that they are not acknowledging that once a migrant overstays a visa, crosses illegally, brought in under TPS or is waiting for asylum claim that they are not going to deport these people at the conclusion of their case or are discovered.
So democrats should come clean with numbers. Tell America how many immigrants we should PLAN for and be ready to address conservative concerns about follow on immigration (encouraging more to come, family etc). They should also explain impacts to wage rates on unskilled Americans.
Republicans are straight hypocrites in that their constituents, including the President himself, are the ones hiring these people. Conservative states with Farmers, construction, home health care, trades are hiring these people in large numbers. They also push hard for H1B visas too They are part of the pull that brings immigrants here.
This migration is part of the slow march towards an integrated North America Union. That’s the future in a few decades. It will probe more efficient economically and practically demanded socially.
17
Let's be blunt about the real cause of these invading armies: That the Northern Triangle -- indeed, almost all Latin American countries -- are experiencing gross overpopulation.
That phenomenon has nothing to do with American policies or interventions, past or present.
It has but one source: Catholicism.
Overpopulation is why our southern border is being invaded in such numbers. But we, here, cannot stop the overpopulation these folks are fleeing, except -- only possibly -- by forcing them back, where they must deal with the situation they themselves, under "guidance" from their religious leaders, created.
The resulting conflicts may well be horrendous. But they are unavoidable. And, just as they are not of our making, neither can we provide a solution. The people there must do so – or at least try.
31
I'm baffled by how different the data is here than what was presented by the LA Times in 2014. They ran a piece stating that Obama's "deportations" were almost entirely occurring at the border and there was a vanishingly small chance of being truly deported, as in from the interior of the country. Did Obama's numbers increase in his last couple of years?
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
11
What really has changed is the number of illegal undocumented immigrants trying to cross the border. There is nothing manufactured about this fact. The democrats nor the GOP have done nothing to solve this problem.
27
"Compulsory removal often means uprooting longtime residents who may have families and own property or businesses, and who are then barred from returning to the United States for a period of years."
To those who believe that such people are entitled to special consideration based on the length of time they've been here illegally, I say only that these individuals knew the risks involved when they made the decision to disrespect our laws. We are a sovereign nation or we are not; there is no middle ground. This editorial echoes word for word the recommendations of the Jordan Commission: "Those who should get in, get in; those who shouldn't get in, won't get in; and those who shouldn't be here will be required to leave."
36
I'd like to point out a quite significant data visualization/graphics error which appears online and in print.
The data visualization for Bill Clinton (with the 2000 header) has quite a large error -- the "Removals" depicted are mistakenly exaggerated by a factor of 10 (assuming the number of removals is correct). This can be seen by comparing across categories and across years.
It would be useful if this could be amended, so readers can better understand the trends over time.
7
The real immigration test is employer sanctions. Sanctions work:no jobs, no illegals.
How much have employers been fined for hiring illegals? How many claims? How many H1B violations? H2A&B?
BTW, the best obect lesson is our president:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/nyregion/trump-tower-illegal-immigrant-workers-union-settlement.html
20
The democrats' only success on immigration has been stopping...a wall. They threw everyone else overboard (ex., DACA) just to stonewall. Trump was clearly ready to make a deal, but they refused to let him...build a wall.
22
@AACNY....The wall is not an effort intended to promote legal immigration. The wall is a symbol to Trump's base. It is a symbol of intolerance and bigotry leveled against anyone who is not of white European ancestry even if you were born here. If you support intolerance and bigotry, as many Trump supporters do, then it is a great idea. If you really want to stop illegal immigration, there are ways that will actually work.
6
Love to know how you figure the Democrats were responsible when they cut a deal, and Trump watched FOX and blew it up the next day.
Oh, wait...you BELIEVED him when he first said there was a deal, and then when he said there wasn’t, and then when Trump said there never was a deal.
Oh, my. That is most unfortunate.
5
@AACNY, let’s hope after this food fight is over some sanity will prevail. The wall was probably just a ruse to get Democrats to the table to show what a fit they could throw and the mess they were capable of making. They’ve proved themselves with flying colors as the Democratic debates and hysterical overreaction and grandstanding using the inhumane mess on the border as a political opportunity only show. Solely demonizing Trump helps those poor immigrant kids and families stranded in political and legal limbo not one bit whatsoever. Time for Dems and Reps to start working together to fix this the right way. Cling to the hope of their final Hail Mary of “Mueller speaks” on July 24 if they must, but otherwise shut up and stop crying over spilled milk.
7
Yet again, we see that Democrats are more effective at dealing with an issue, just as the economy tends to do better under Democrats. Yet somehow, much of the American electorate continues to buy the malarky the GOP is selling, including the lies about Democrats on these issues. The Trump base constantly conflates those seeking asylum in the US, which is legal, with those making illegal entry and hiding amongst the population. Of course, since it is not legal, it should be dealt with. But the perversion of Donald Trump and his base being so sanctimonious and enraged about illegals, when Trump himself has hired illegal immigrants his entire professional life and has himself been found over and over again to have committed crimes, from Obstruction of justice to witness tampering to being accused of sexual assault and rape, all felonies (illegal crossing is a misdemeanor), but then his shrieking base suddenly is not quite as concerned about alleged lawbreaking, let alone Trump's hypocrisy re: illegal immigrants. Obama did his job in deporting people who are not here legally but he balanced it with humanitarian programs, and Obama had no history of regular hiring of illegals. Trump seems only capable of using cruelty, power abuse, threats, intimidation, causing pain to achieve anything, from his tariffs to his dehumanizing immigrants, to his campaign style...it's always mean. Always. That tells me more about Donald Trump and his base than it does about anyone else.
97
@Virginia The former, people lawfully seeking asylum become the latter, people hiding among the general population, when they opt to remain here unlawfully after their asylum cases are denied. It is expensive, invasive, and heart-wrenching to round up spouses and parents who’ve been living here for years. If failed asylum seekers and other unauthorized residents were able to earn enough money to feed all of their kids without aid from the government, then immigration would not be an issue, but that’s not the case. Even the respected Pew Foundation, which presents research on immigrants with a tone of empathy, acknowledges that the poorest working Americans are harmed by competing against an abundant supply of low-wage immigrant labor.
43
@Jan Allen
Employer sanctions must be enforced.
If you or someone you know has lost a jpb because an employer discriminated in favor of an illegal, rush to a trial lawyer. If you know an employer has been hiring illegals, report them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/nyregion/trump-tower-illegal-immigrant-workers-union-settlement.html
19
As the son of immigrants, and while agreeing that enforcing our immigration laws is particularly important in maintaining our national sovereignty, I find the specific behavior of Donald Trump and his most rabid, thoughtless, tribal followers the root cause of our current situation of division and distrust. Enforcing the law is not an act that should be used to prove one's manhood. Enforcing the law is something that should, and generally is, done firmly but fairly and as humanely as the circumstances allow. One does not beat one's chest before going out to enforce the law unless one is basically a coward to begin with, needing to summon some barbaric ritual manliness to face the task.
When I was in the Navy, every third day in port I expected to be assigned to Shore Patrol, given an armband and nightstick and sent ashore to keep my shipmates from harming each other or the locals. None of us ever shirked that duty, but none of us enjoyed it, and absolutely none of us saw it as a demonstration of our manhood. We just did our duty, never pulled our nightstick unless there was no other option, and looked forward to returning to be just another shipmate in the morning. I find Trump's strutting, preening, gloating displays of pleasure in inflicting gratuitous cruelty, rather than just enforcing the law, absolutely stomach turning.
128
@Charles Becker
Well stated, especially the parallel drawn between the current administration's handling of border security with your experience in Shore Patrol. Obviously, the job has to be done - NOBODY wants absolutely "open borders", as we Democrats have been accused of wanting. But the way the job is done has to be with respect, empathy and a real sense of humanity - those qualities sadly absent in Trump's world.
31
This is where Democratic leaders were - till just a few years ago. Now they are all tripping over each other to encourage breaking the law.
1. Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union Address. "are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal
immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51634
2. Bill Clinton, 1996 State of the Union Address. "problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=53091
3. Feinstein "I think we can enforce our borders. I think we should enforce our borders. To have a situation where 40 percent of the babies born on Medicaid in California today are born of illegal immigrants creates a very real problem for the state which is in deficit ... to have 17 percent of our prison population at a cost of $300 million a year be illegal immigrants who come here and commit felonies – that’s not what this nation is all about." https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195004389.html
4. In 2006, Obama said " When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.
30
How can you say that about our saintly presidents, Obama and Clinton!
5
Trump broke all morality in the USA. Compared to Trump, Obama and Clinton are saintly.
4
Mr. Obama deported almost 500,000 while Mr. Trump deported much less. However, Obama did not demean immigrants or politicize the situation. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump demeans those migrants and is politicizing to get his base excited. I am against illegal immigration and I do not like what I hear from socialistic democratic candidates on this issue. Health care and driver license for illegal immigrants while millions in USA are without medical insurance. No US budget money available beyond Sep 2019 while 4 billion $ allocated for those trying to cross boundaries illegally? They are trying to hand over 2020 win to Mr. Trump who runs adult day care "white" house. According to British ambassador, our president is committing political (Iran nuclear agreement), social (affordable care) vandalism to Obama’s legacy. Are there any men/women in GOP who can stand against him? Please help the voters to make better choice in 2020.
5
I’m sensing a slight amount of contrition finally from the Board which I find kind of unbearably embarrassing to read. This probably could have been avoided if only from day one of Trump’s administration the Board hadn’t insisted on spelling POTUS, STUPID. Anyone so cocksure as that to use all caps is usually always wrong. But let’s just forgive and forget and try to work together from now on to fix things so they work right for everybody.
4
The wast majority of working immigrants create a lot more value than they consume. The problem is that the wast majority of that value is harvested by the companies they work for - so in some cases their cost to society can be slightly above what they pay in taxes. However, when you count in that they all inherit $60,000 per person of national debt when they become permanent residents - its still a heck of a good deal for US.
6
In talking about immigrants and asylum seekers, Senator Bernie Sanders emphasized the need to put more resources into humane treatment and the asylum process. But he also emphasized that much needs to be done, working with all involved countries to assure safe productive lives for people in their home countries.
Throughout the world the US has wrecked or destabilized countries in order to prove its dominance and protect its national interest, its corporations and global elites. Enforcing capitalism was essential, democracy was not.
US actions have made many countries unlivable and violent and their people are forced to migrate. The US has an obligation to repair these countries.
Few paid attention at the time, or remember now, but one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as Secretary of State was to support a coup in Honduras wanted by US business interests. After that coup, violence spiked in Honduras and now there are tens of thousands of Honduran families seeking asylum in the US is the result.
Again, as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, refused to allow a UN negotiated Syrian peace accord to proceed in 2012, because it did not demand Syrian President Assad's removal. In 2012 some six million Syrians began to flee the violence and seek refuge in Europe... the backlash was Brexit and a changed Europe. That was the result of the US actions...
Repairing wrecked countries is a necessary part of the immigration/asylum seeker dilemma.
3
Anybody else notice something about this editorial? It uses the descriptor "unauthorized immigrants." Not "undocumented immigrants." Not "illegal aliens." The use of "undocumented immigrants" as a description of persons who have entered this country without proper authorization likely arose as a backlash to the pejorative sounding "illegal aliens." Using the descriptor "undocumented" is false because it implies that the immigrant is simply missing some appropriate document which would allow them to stay legally. I hope the NYT puts this in their style sheet for reporters.
21
This is where Democratic writers & leaders were - till just a few years ago.
1. In 2005, Glenn Greenwald wrote "Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.
2. In 2006, Paul Krugman wrote "immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants and that the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. We ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.
3. Biden "Joe Biden praised a 2006 immigration bill for denying amnesty to illegal immigrants and punishing businesses that employ them" https://freebeacon.com/politics/flashback-biden-opposed-amnesty-called-for-immigrants-to-speak-english/
4. Coretta Scott King letter in 1991 "cause another problem the revival of the pre-1986 discrimination against black and brown U.S. and documented workers, in favor of cheap labor the undocumented workers" http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-corretta-scott-king-warned-illegals-would-take-black-jobs/article/2558647
How do you think an average American would react to such blatant change in stance in just a few years? The burdens on taxpayers from illegals has only increased. So what gives - except hypocricy and vote pandering.
25
@thewriterstuff
The words Democrats and coherent should not be used in the any sentence.
16
Democrats ‘ position on the now not manufactured border crisis is more facilities, more judges, and more benefits for ‘asylum seekers’, ostensibly to streamline the process for all who seek residence. And of course, ignore that 30 plus percent of children are not with real relatives, and that over 80% will claim escape from danger as they are coached.
But even after they go through that process, and are ruled against, and deportation is initiated (like this week), they scream that result is cruel. But dare say that what Democrats, and the New York Times are advocating is for open borders, and you all are aghast. Got it.
26
One does not have to read between the lines to determine Trump is a racist. Just look at his statement "these people aren't coming from Norway." In the face of the recent cocaine bust at the port of Philadelphia, Trump continues to ignore that ports of entry pose a far more serious threat than the southern border and claim that the main problem is at the southern border. Gotta hand it to him - if nothing else, his stream of lies demonstrates his chutzpah.
3
I despise Trump....I'm a Democrat....but what is he supposed to do? People can't just come into the country at their will anytime they want. (separating kids is another story)
I want to move to France and get a job....but I have to follow the law or they will kick me out.
25
The Obama administration deported many, under the radar and low keyed.
The problem with Trump deporting anyone, is not just his long and odious racism—
He isn't trusted, has no integrity, and absolutely no credibility.
We must therefore wait until he is deported from the White House.
1
With Trump, it's all about the cruelty.
4
I would disagree. I think it is and should be a provocative proposition. Because it is really based on racism in Western culture, including the US!
This is really all about racism. “Immigration” has always been a concern in Western culture due to one and only one factor: racism!
In the past it was Italians, Jews, etc. Now it’s Africans, Latinos etc.
In Australia Britons and Americans often form one of, if not the largest number of illegal immigrants! You don’t hear about it. Why? Racism! They’re white!
it should be provocative because it’s founded on racism!
You might say “oh, we can’t have everybody come here!” We’ll, not everybody is coming here!
A country as small as Uganda, the size of a small state in the US, has taken in literally millions of refugees from Sudan, the DRC, Rwanda etc.
Uganda is much smaller than Texas or Florida or California, has a population of nearly 45 million people, people there are much poorer, yet they have opened their country to refugees, even literally given them land!
The US is many times larger, richer and is getting a tiny fraction of immigrants or refugees, and you have a problem with immigrants?
I am sorry, deportation is a provocative proposition.
The US and much of the west are more racist cultures and traditions than places like Africa!!! That’s why immigration and refugees are a “problem!”
So, yes, deportation is a provocative proposition cause it’s based on a history and culture of racism in Western culture!
1
For the second time in less than a week the Times offers an editorial that goes trough contortions in order to deliver a negative spin on a Trump policy with which it has no choice but to agree (The Fed must lower rates) or which is not a Trump policy after all, but a policy pursued by all preceding presidents as well - namely the duty to deport illegal aliens. For a newspaper to have a preference among candidates running for office is one thing. Once they are in office, however, a measure of civility is expected, and polite disagreement, where legitimate, is fine. But the relentless, endless, no holds barred gang up against Trump on the part of the Times' editors and its broken-record stable of opinion writers is an embarrassment, and shames a once-great newspaper that has lost any semblance of objectivity.
24
@JJ Gross Thank you so much for your great comment. Unfortunately, the NY Times has really gone downhill in the past few years...so sad.
14
@JJ Gross...While I agree with you, any acknowledgement that Trump does something constructive just won't do for the 2020 election. Trump himself does not acknowledge ANY positives from his predecessor, and as you know sits next to McConnel in his ambition to tear his legacy down. As far as the NY Times, they are one of the multi-headed beasts described by Trump as the enemy. Are they supposed to play nice?
2
This is a problem which needs to be addressed. The NYTs has no credibility when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. This paper refers to illegal immigrants as immigrants showing it has a ideological goal in it's reporting. Those with a legal court order of removal must be removed. Those that help them evade the law should be prosecuted. Immigrant advocates are in a criminal conspiracy with cartels and human smuggling operations. And the lawyers are always there to make everything impossible- and to get public funds.
28
@willt26...If you really want to stop illegal immigration, you issue bio-identity social security cards and bio-identity green cards, and punish any employer who hires someone who does not present a bio-identity card. End of problem. If you want to make a show to your base you lock people up in cages and build a wall.
4
All President’s are Deporters—is a deceptive characterization. Leave it to the Tepid Times to lump all the Presidents into the same party.
2
Why would anyone want 100,000 illegals flowing over our southern border each and every month?
It'd be interesting to know why this is a good thing.
The average American does not benefit from unfettered migration.
27
Just want to throw this in here again, in case when I commented earlier I didn't do something wrong. Seeing as this doesn't go out until tomorrow's paper, you still have plenty of time to correct it, and state why Obama/Biden's numbers were higher.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
People who are here illegally should be deported. Period.
21
Democrats risk talking themselves out of the White House, as each candidate tries to be more liberal on immigration policy than the others.
Warren's recent unfortunate policy position is a case in point.
The solution to inhumane treatment of detainees has nothing to do with the solution to the explosion of families who are economic refugees asking for asylum.
This editorial ignores the fact that Obama and earlier presidents did not have to deal with the problem of family immigration on the scale occurring today.
Harsh condemnation of the mistreatment of detainees is not enough. Voters want to hear what Democrats will do to reduce the numbers of families showing up at our border. Unfortunately, what Castro and Warren are proposing will have the opposite effect. I do not want four more years. Do better.
16
Anyone else remember when this " after being afforded due process." went without saying?
4
Close to 200 million people live in Mexico and Central America and virtually all want to move to America given the lawless conditions under which most exist.
The Editorial Board proscribes Trump's tone and that his administration took too many immigrants creating cruel overcrowding. Jesus couldn't beat that wrap and Trump ain't no Jesus. If Trump was, he'd take all 200 million and the Board would howl even louder. Admit it. The process is going to be cruel to someone no matter what.
The Board could have the courage to step up and tell us exactly how many of those 200 million they want to take by when and how they plan to manage the impact on American citizens not to mention the immigrants.
So do tell because complaining is not a strategy for the immigrant conundrum. And if they do I suggest they get on their flack jackets.
21
As a recent permanent resident (after 16 years legally living in the US) I have viewed comments about legal vs. illegal immigration on NYT for months and amazed at the following:
1. Most Americans could not even tell you where to start to immigrate legally to this country.
2. The immigration laws of this country are stupidly complex with so many loop holes (just like our tax code) that gives folks with deep pockets and influence more leverage than the average joe. (Think exceptionally skilled migrant visas that our First Lady immigrated with as a model). Even the so-called chain immigration that Trump decries has benefitted his own family.
3. Compared to the immigration systems/laws of the UK, Australia and Canada - the US legal immigration resembles one of a third world country. With people going through the process being at the mercy of the whims/moods of immigration officers. The process is rife with errors, backlogs and the worst type of bureaucracy. Both the Bush II and Obama administrations worked to improve some of the inefficiencies but with the current admin. all those gains have been wiped out.
4. If people are serious about welcoming legal immigrants ask your representatives in Congress to overhaul the laws. The point system that was proposed by Jared K. I have to admit was a step in the right direction with some improvements.
11
Layo,
Despite the challenges of our system, it’s better than the “white glove” concierge for cherry picked immigrants that Canada and Australia uses.
America brings in the suffering, the poor and the uneducated. Canada and Australia brings in PHD’s and entrepreneurs.
6
That last graph is completely broken. The numbers say that Clinton removed a little more than half of the Obama and Bush administrations, yet it displays more than twice the other administrations amounts.
2
Yes, but...how many left men in cages that have not been able to shower in 20 days? Yes, but...how many let children and young kids sleep on floors, separated from their parents comfort and care, causing trauma for life? This is not just 'lawful' detention, this is the new era of concentration camp of a 'new' dark age in disguise.
5
If your true intent is to protect the public from violent, illegal immigrants by enforcing the law, then you go about their removal in a careful, expeditious manner without serving advance notice or calling attention to your plans.
If on the other hand you really don't care how many illegal aliens there are, particularly since your family has profited from their cheap labour for decades, but are driven instead by the political gains to be made in middle America by appearing to be tough on illegal migrants - then of course you do what is being done. You give your plans a huge public build-up in advance - even if it antagonizes whole cities, even if it puts ICE personnel in greater peril, and even if it results in fewer removals and deportations than would have been possible had you kept your mouth shut.
We know of course which of these options best describes what Trump is up to and why.
3
ICE defines “removal” as “the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.”
According to ICE, the Trump administration conducted 226,119 removals in FY 2017 and 256,086 in FY 2018. By comparison, the Obama administration conducted 396,906 removals in FY 2011 and 409,849 in FY 2012.
The removals don’t put a dent in the illegal immigrant population. Migrants cross the border illegally much faster than we can catch and deport them.
The Border Patrol has apprehended 905,926 illegal border crossers during FY 2019, with three months left to go. This counts only those who were caught or turned themselves in to the Border Patrol.
We need to revise immigration and asylum laws to make decisions made by CBP officials at the border final with no recourse to the judicial system. When foreign nationals apply for visas, they do not get judicial hearings when their applications are denied. Why should migrants who cross the border illegally get court hearings?
https://www.ice.gov/statistics
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
9
In other words, Obama deported more people than Trump without any such changes, so therefore we need to make the changes you demand. This is further proved by your sneaking feeling that many, many more are sneaking in.
Are they carrying Saddam’s unfound WMDs, one wonders. Or perhaps a heavy burden of Obamaphones. Or wait, I know, they’re all those dancing moozlims celebrating 9/11 in Jersey that nobody ever found.
2
@William Case
The Border Patrol has apprehended 905,926 illegal border crossers during FY 2019, with three months left to go.
*****
Wow. Just wow. And democrats are complaining about what, again?
10
I read somewher that President Obama quietly removed thousands of immigrants during his tenure. Does anyone out there know if it's true? If it is. we've got two black kettles.
3
It's legal to seek asylum, and refugees should have their day in court. That has happened, and some people received a deportation order. Now Democrats scream foul. What is this but open borders?
20
I find it interesting that the Board again ignores whose responsible for our immigration problems. Congress. They are the leg of the government that is charged with creating and passing statutes, including those related to immigration. It's the judiciary and executive that are responsible for enforcement.
I completely get it that the NYT is consumed, to distraction, with destroying President Trump and those that support him. But at least place the blame for the immigration mess where it belongs. Congress.
14
Would this be the Congress that had bipartisan legislation good to go in 2006 until the right-wing wacko-birds in the Freedom Caucus blew it up, the Congress that had bipartisan legislation good to go in 2013 until the right-wing wacko-birds blew it up, or the Congress that offered Trump deals in 2017 that His Nibs accepted until FOX blew them up?
4
@Robert
If they really were bipartisan they would have at least been sent to the President for signature. None of them have, have they? In fact the last time anything became law was 1986.
4
In order to blame Trump and his administration for the "inhuman" congestion in the detainment centers and being a "bad deporter", the NYT editorial board plays pick and choose with the facts of the situation, and conveniently "forgets" to mention the administrations' warning of the crisis situation at the southern border that was ignored for month by the media (including NYT) and Congress, the months of lack of action by Congress, passing the essential aid only recently and the huge surge in illegal crossings in recent months, which are the real reasons for the congestion. Instead of careful analysis, this article looks like an attempt to blame, and dehumanize the administration, which essentially has acted like all previous administrations.
11
Heaven forbid we enforce laws.
17
From 7000 to 9000 people have died in the desert as a consequence of Bill Clinton's, "prevention by deterrence" policy which CBP measures effectiveness by numbers who die in the desert. The idea is to plug up entry points to make them impassible so as to force migrants to fight the hot desert and the Rio Grande for survival. We need to take down Emma Lazarus's poem and remove it from the statue of liberty. Better yet send it back to France as the U.S. has become the land of depraved indifference murder. Hopefully, the International Criminal Court will get around to trying the U.S. government. I will not hold my breath Perhaps a fitting defense for the U.S. should be crafted by that Lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz. Having ended slavery it seems the U.S. could not exist for long periods without doing something dastardly. For a full account read John Carlos Frey's book Blood and Sand.
1
This editorial makes it 100% clear that Trump's immigration policy and enforcement is NOT about illegal (or legal) immigration at all. Not is it about removing lawbreakers or criminals. It IS 100% about his WALL! And his EGO!!!!
2
You complain Trump is insensitive and admit these people should not be here. The EB specializes in excoriating the hated Trump without any constructive solution.
12
Between now and Election Day, Trump should take all this all to the people.
He should enforce immigration laws to the maximum, deport the lawbreakers, all while the Sanctuary City mayors protect illegals and badmouth ICE.
And while violent protestors attack and beat fellow Americans on live TV.
The perfect recipe for his landslide re-election.
17
Border Patrol Agents can only "return" illegal aliens which they do on a daily basis. Interior apprehensions result in "removals." Immigration Judges order "removals." A Federal Judge can order a convicted alien to be deported (remove) after he serves his sentence. The editorial board, as usual, is slanting their opinion against President Trump. I believe this all started when Trump didn't do with DACA as the libs would have liked. Obama was wrong in the first place by creating the DACA debacle. But as usual it is all Trump's doing. NYT needs to have a hard look at themselves re. their reporting on the President.
11
1. Which part of "illegal" doesnt NYTimes Editorial Board not understand?
2. There are ~25m illegals in the country - https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
3. And there are a million who have final deportation orders - https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article231687048.html
4. Each and everyone one of these individuals went thru the exceedingly elaborate and slow legal avenues to make thier case - and almost always on the taxpayers dime. On average it takes about 10-15 years for them to get to this state. So if these people cannot be deported, who can be?
5. How is NYTimes so blatantly asking for laws to be broken or not followed? Who are the readers who support such a newspaper?
6. The 'defence' that they have US born children is silly. It is not some difficult achievement like winning a Nobel prize or Olympic Gold (which only a few are able to) - and as such deserve special accomodation. How did that turn from a negative (that they burden US taxpayers with these kids) to a positive (this fact protects the law breaking parents)?
7. illegal border-crossers shows a net fiscal drain of $74,722 per illegal crosser.2 The above figures are only for the original illegal immigrants and do not include any costs for their U.S.-born descendants. If we include the descendants, the fiscal drain for border-crossers grows to $94,391 each https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/13#410
19
The Editorial Board’s assertion that Trump’s government “hasn’t yet forcibly removed many more people per year than did those of his predecessors” is part of the New York Times’ “Making the Truth Hard to Find Campaign.” The truth is that the Trump administration has not forcibly removed nearly as many people as his predecessor.
ICE defines “removal” as “the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.” Deportations are types of removals.
According to ICE, the Obama administration conducted 396,906 removals in FY 2011 and 409,849 in FY 2012. The Trump administration conducted 226,119 removals in FY 2017 and 256,086 in FY 2018.
ICE estimates more than one million illegal aliens will enter the country illegally this year. TYhe removals don’t put much of a dent in the illegal immigrant population, which is growing, not shrinking.
https://www.ice.gov/statistics
10
Pick the most absurd Trump statment:
a) his father was born in Germany
b) the Continental Army took over the airports
c) Finns rake the forests
d) Climate change is a Chinese hoax
e) Democrats want open borders
Not easy, is it? They're all such strong contenders.
2
Seems like a lot of wantonlgy mealy mouthed, convoluted and obfuscated verbiage to let us know that Trump is doing what all presidents must do only somehow, for reasons that become less and less clear as this diatribe progresses, when Trump does it it is evil. Only utterly brainwashed,diehard members of the progressive echo chamber would fail to see through this.
12
Please publish an article or editorial about the comprehensive immigration reform act which passed in the U.S. Senate 68 to 32 but was never brought up in the U.S. House of Representatives by John Boehner using the contrived Hastert rule. I am certain the NYTimes has already done so but it bears repeating.
3
Compassion is an important virtue, certainly, yet it isn’t an endless, infinite loop of warm, fuzzy feelings. The real world always intercedes.
We can’t have an open, unguarded border, so we have to have rules and procedures, which in practice means that some people will not be allowed in, and that those who sneak in, if they get caught at some point, will have to be sent back. This doesn’t call for callous and ruthless measures, but it does require a firm hand.
In America’s younger days, with a wide open continent to populate and a willingness to ignore the presence of a native population, the border could be, and often was, more welcoming. That is over now. America, despite abundant criticism, remains a beacon to people suffering disadvantageous circumstances in the world. They see opportunity here, and, despite Trump’s bluster, we do have some room for them.
There are employers here (arguably, likely Republicans) who would welcome them as an opportunity to pay lower wages. They are some, primarily farmers, who depend on them as the only available labor force. We have to face up to these realities.
Realistically, though, there is a limit to our ability to admit economic refugees. We can’t fix all of the inequality in the word. We can’t even fix all of it here. Our foreign policy can help some, but since regime change is off limits, as it should be, we can’t force countries to be better.
All of which means we need the rule of law, not whim, at the border.
20
Our policies on immigration deal with symptoms and not root cause and trends.
The people of Central America and Mexico are voting with their feet. They want to be Americans and realize America has the best standard of living and rule of law.
Our countries, including Canada, are merging. We can manage it proactively and positively with immigration reforms and intense rehabilitation in Central America OR we can stumble along inefficiently with the punitive and incoherent laws of today.
The NAFTA countries should focus resources and policy on immigration, reform and economic integration on the Western Hemisphere. Let Europe, Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand manage migration of Asians and Africans.
1
@practical thoughts
I don’t know. You say immigrants know that we have the “best rule of law” ... but then all they have to do is break our laws by crossing our borders illegally to get our benefits?
And my Canadian friends would beg to differ with your assessment that our nations are “merging, even Canada.” They want nothing to do with us!
4
So... we have the “best rule of law” but all you have to do is break the law by crossing our borders illegally to enjoy all the benefits that our taxpayer-funded nation has to offer?
And my Canadian friends would beg to differ with your assessment that our nations are “merging, even Canada.” They want nothing to do with us!
3
@Misplaced Modifier,
Our rule of law compared to Central America is far superior. Regardless, you are missing the point. Central Americans want to be Americans. Period. The trends suggest more immigration and not less. To fix the root cause would cause even more integration of the USA and Central America.
The human capital is flowing to where it’s most productive. Therefore, our economies are merging as a result when you consider remittances and follow on immigration.
We can manage it proactively or reactively.
2
The complaint here seems to be that Trump doesn't make the process of immigration enforcement look as nice as Obama made it look. Maybe we should really be asking why our current system, which criminalizes migrants and leans on coercion to stop something that really is not going to stop makes any sense at all.
2
Sadly, Democrats will lose the White House because of their obtuse insistence on this issue. Their extreme “militant left” thinking is as destructive to the health of our nation as the extreme “militant right” is.
Most Americans agree with the Democratic Party’s social and economic agenda overall. But Democrats lose a lot of support and votes because the immigration issue — NOT because of racism or xenophobia as media and pro-illegal immigrant groups would have you believe. This is NOT about skin color (that’s just an easy, emotionally-charged blame-game). Put emotions aside and think objectively, pragmatically about this issue.
The illegal immigration issue is about economics, overpopulation, and to a small degree fairness — not “justice” but fairness, which is an issue of laws, equality, and sustainability.
It’s nationwide-suicide to think we can open our borders and give amnesty to tens and hundreds of millions of unskilled, uneducated, unhealthy, desperate people. It’s suicide to think we can do this indefinitely. We don’t have the money, natural resources, or infrastructure to handle that. It’s also irresponsible to allow people from third-worlds to cross our borders without checking their health, history or motives. No other nation in the world allows this. The Democratic Party had better change their stance on the issue. I’m surprised Warren, who is so pragmatic about all other issues, can’t understand this...
20
" Long-term residents outnumber recent arrivals."
Brilliant. It's like saying that last minute arrivals for an airplane are fewer than people already boarded.
12
People who knowingly break the law must be punished for their actions. Dreamers were brought here without choice. They should get the chance to stay in America if they are law-abiding individuals. Adult illegal immigrants made a decision to break the law. They should be deported.
12
In October, 2018, Donald Trump denounced a migrant caravan "invasion," making it both the GOP's closing argument and get-out-the-vote scheme in the run-up to the mid-terms. FOX, Infowars, and others amplified this theme.
This campaign was presented as a response to emergent events, but was it?
At the beginning of October, the number of migrants in Guatemala was less than 200. According to an article appearing in Buzzfeed, a Facebook account impersonating Honduran migrant activist Bartolo Fuentes promoted the formation of a caravan, claiming that Fuentes and Pueblo sin Fronteras were the avid organizers. Migrants increased to about 1500. Neither Fuentes nor Pueblo sin Fronteras thought a caravan at that time was a good idea; it was likely to provide grist for the GOP's anti-migrant messaging. Absent a subpoena, Facebook will not provide any information about the phony account beyond that it was cancelled due to impersonation.
So we don't know who promoted the caravan, but according to the time honored approach to ask "who benefited,"clearly Trump and the GOP benefited. And regardless of the Facebook account, its a matter of empirical fact that caravan numbers swelled to almost 7,000 as its existence dominated the news cycle.
According to the US Border Patrol web site, apprehensions increased dramatically with the new year, soaring to a record 133, 000 by May, 2 1/2 times October numbers.
Did Trump himself create the current crisis?
1
"Under Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported more than 385,000 immigrants each fiscal year from 2009-2011 before reaching a high of 409,849 in 2012. In contrast, the Trump administration deported only 226,119 in fiscal year 2017, and roughly 250,000 in fiscal year 2018."
3
"Overfilled under Mr. Trump": Wouldn't it be more honest to say that these detention facilities were overfilled because a tsunami of illegal aliens (accompanied by one or more children), few of whom have any legitimate claims to asylum according to international law, has been encouraged to flood our borders? What has encouraged them?
States and localities that provide them and their children with welfare, free medical care and education in whatever language (certainly not English!) they speak; drivers licences that conceal their illegal status; do-gooders who warn them of imminent attempts by our elected government to deport them; politicians who promise them that, if elected, they will erase the illegal status of these aliens and welcome them into citizenship; prosecutors who refuse to prosecute them for "minor" crimes like breaking and entering, shoplifting and drug-dealing; judges who rush them out courthouse back doors so ICE can't catch them.
These reasons, not global warming and the other equally fatuous explanations, account for the tsunami that has flooded the Clint and other detention centers.
I pay you for my NY Timees subscription with genuine money, not counterfeit money. In return, I request genuine, not counterfeit, reporting... and editorial opinions that are based on all (or even some) relevant facts, not just a few distorted "facts" or hearsay.
16
Comprehensive immigration reform is way overdue for sure. Past administrations were dealing with mainly working-age men looking to send money back to Mexico. Deportations were high, timely, but not cruel. Now we have whole families, and "unaccompanied" (not with legal parents) minors coming, and cruelty abounds as these helpless people seek a better life. We have no control over who comes, but we do control how we behave when a person is here seeking asylum, entry under immigration laws, or even illegal entry. We are better than putting people — especially little kids — in cages.
It's tragically laughable to hear the trump party defend their dear leader's inhumanity by pointing to Obama as someone who enforced U.S. laws. Anything that Obama did, even upholding the Constitution, is deserving of attack, because...you know, "he's not like the rest of us." This is a man who has settled numerous racial discrimation lawsuits, who called for the execution of five minors who were later found innocent of the crimes they were convicted of, who called an entire ethnicity of people criminals, murders, rapists, who declared that a judge could not do his job because of his ethnicity, and who today told Americans of color serving in Congress to "go back to the countries they came from."
This is who that "man" is, this is the trump party, from top to bottom, from leaders to average voters, and no amount of declaring "this is not who we are" can deny this.
3
What do open borders really mean?
To establish "country" and "boundaries", a certain degree of violence will become manifest. Two things occur:
1. We push vulnerable and native populations away from the privileged and wealthy.
2. We keep out folks that are seeking asylum and/or filter them severely to curtail mass immigration.
These types of policies contributed to the Holocaust that affected my family directly. Getting into the United States has never been easy.
In certain countries open borders may truly not work. We can always look at Israel for an example. Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud built a literal wall around Gaza and the West Bank. Terrorist activity dropped significantly. The price has been international condemnation as if Israel were, simply, located where Germany is, for instance. And even in Europe the borders are closing.
But we are not Israel. Without borders we are left with the FBI, the CIA and the police departments. We are also left with increasing electronic surveillance, and a greater degree of police state, no doubt.
I am left fully convinced by the system of checks and balances that the far right Trump Administration is flaunting at every turn.
Borders are terrible. We may need them but we desperately need to critique them, to hope for a time when they would not be at all necessary. We need eyes on our government. Now more than ever.
In December of 2004 we spend a month in Thailand.
We went trekking (hiking) in northern Thailand for three day adventure.
The group consisted of mostly Europeans from Germany, Sweden , Austria .
They were sharing with us four Americans that they were all taught in all their high schools that within a 100 years America would be a third world country.
Like former President Obama was quoted saying recently, Americans don’t get the real news around the world .
7
@Independent voter
I agree. There is a lot that doesn't get reported in the NYT and Washington Post, among others. What DOES get reported are things that support the left wing slant of most of the MSM. I go to international news outlets for the true story rather than slanted opinion.
10
This editorial seems to miss the point that actually distresses and angers so many in this country about tRump’s “bully boy” round-ups, family separations, unnecessary child deaths, confinements in inhuman conditions, and cruel and disorienting deportation practices: it’s the METHOD NOT THE GOAL that is so disturbing. There are very few, if any, who think our borders should be porous, but intimidation and bullying (a tRump hallmark in business) is not an Immigration Policy for the U.S. and is ineffectual. tRump’s use of ICE under the pretext of enforcing an untenable immigration system increasingly resembles the tactics of Germany’s brown shirts of the 1930s. This paper and has reported on the indifference of tRump’s bully-boys as U.S. Citizens and other legal residents have been caught-up in these raids and lost for months in the ICE Gulag. Under tRump, we are sadly becoming a country committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY-- we should be ashamed.
Since the prior 3 administrations had higher numbers of removed/returned persons, tRump's bullying also is ineffectual and not deterring. He has had 5 years to articulate a clear plan for Immigration reform—it was his signature issue on the campaign trail and he has been in office now for 2.5 years, so the “what about” blaming is untenable. No one from this Administration has articulated a clear and comprehensive immigration reform plan: a wall and ICE raids are not a plan— only brown-shirt bully tactics to create bogeymen.
3
The program with trying to do comprehensive immigration reform is that the 2 parties can not agree. It passed out of the Senate in 2013 with support of both parties only to have the House under Ryan's leadership fail to take it up. Now with Trump in office, the Senate will not ever take up anything that Trump might not sign. Trump changes his mind depending on what Fox news reports. So what we need is to get Fox news involved in writing the bills. Does anyone think that would be good for America?
Until business in ready to pay the required wage to hire Americans and we are in turn ready to pay more for our food, recycling services, etc., it will not change. Big business, Agra and others, will continue to hire illegals and blame temp agencies in an effort to shift blame and responsibility. Until big business is held accountable, nothing will change. Hungry people will come to provide food for their families. People fleeing harm will continue even if asylum laws were changed. What are we doing to help make their countries safer? Cutting State Department funding and ending programs makes the problem worse. This administration under Trump's questionable leadership is making this country less safe.
5
Would it not be easier to withdraw from all international conventions pertaining to asylum? I believe, though I do not have the specific citation in front of me, that it was proposed that the Refugee Convention be limited in Europe to geographical regions. The 1951 Refugee Convention was originally drawn up to address the issue of displaced people in Europe after WW11. The reality of today's world with access to jet travel, the internet and cell-phone drastically alters the equation.
12
As some (too few) have indicated comprehensive immigration reform is needed. What too few are saying is that honest reform is needed.
Ignoring the visa problem is not being honest. Ignoring the border is not being honest. Ignoring the dreamers is not honest.
Since the leadership is devoid from the top down, who will that leader be?
5
There will be no reform with McConnell and Trump in power. None.
The right-wing wacko-birds blew up bipartisan reform in 2006, and again in 2013. They blew up a DACA fix; they blew up another deal as well.
They will always blow it up.
3
being the deporter in chief on immigration is fine for a president. but being deporter in chief of congressman and congress woman cannot be legal. it shows how threatened the current administration is by immigrant population. this attitude of keeping the white supremacy will not work any more. the immigrants and minorities will be the majority in next two decades. Immigrants have to work to calm down this fear of the white america. Mr. Trump and his clans is cashing in on this fear and is making the country unlivable for the rest of us. i recommend all immigrant congessional delegates to form a minority for majority party so that when they take over they can change the constitution (over due) on many issues including immigration, women right, gun and religious influence.
Deportation might not be such a problem if we sent a few of the employers, CEOs, Boards, who hire people without proper status checks (e.g., e-verify) to jail for a few years. The main reason the masses come is economic. If farmers, landscapers or others can't find people to work, existing programs for hiring people using temporary visa should be expanded.
2
“We’re focused on criminals,” With all due respect, given Trump is exquisitely challenged by veracity, let's just wait for confirmation that the raids haven't swept up families with plain ol' women and children.
Call me a bit jaded but does it seem odd that these targeted communities bend blue? Seems to me, if ICE wanted to make a big haul, they would do it in someplace like Sibley, Iowa, for example, where 99 out of 100 workers are undocumented. Of course that is the GOP representative Steve King's red district and the home of the family farm of GOP representative Devin Nunes. There's an odd stench of political favoritism here. I'd bet the ranch that there are government directives that red zones are no go zones for any ICE activity.
The GOP has a knack of selectively applying laws to harm democrats while benefiting republicans.
5
Correct me if I am wrong but can not those who are waiting in the border zone get up and leave if they choose to do so?
Are they actually being held captive or ? This is unclear.
7
"That’s because the office comes with the responsibility to enforce the nation’s laws — laws that require that the borders be secure and that some of the people who aren’t legally authorized to live here be deported, after being afforded due process."
This statement is an example of what's wrong with the way the immigration laws are being looked at. The law requires that ALL of the people who are not legally authorized to be here be deported. That is a goal which will not be reached, as with any law, but what would the reaction be if one were to claim that the law requires that some of the persons guilty of forcible rape be jailed?
8
@michaelscody
I hope the Editorial Board will answer your question: "Should the law require that only some who are guilty of forcible rape be jailed?"
The Times dEitorial Board(which now numbers in the hundreds) properly urges presidential candidates to state their individual views as to: Who gets to come; Who gets to stay; Who gets deported. I would add "How Many" to each question.
The Times' suggestion would be more powerful if NYT itself answered these questions:
How many of the 30 million (no, it's not 10 or 11 million illegals here) get to stay?
Do those allowed to stay become citizens?
How many new (legal) immigrants get to come each year?
What happens to future illegal entrants?
Must they follow the laws, or can the new ones also come illegally?
What countries do the new ones come from?
Are white people allowed in, or is it just brown people?
Will the existing illegals and future legal/illegals be given welfare? Free healthcare? Free college? Drivers licenses; Social Security?
What will the presence of these immigrants (including illegals) cost our citizenry in taxes and healthcare premiums at the local, state and national levels?
Is it allowed to arrest and prosecute brown people for "minor" crimes like shop lifting, breaking and entering, and drug dealing?
These are all real life, legitimate questions. I'm sure the Editorial Board members have views on these questions. I for one would like to hear their views.
7
How convenient.... now that Biden is being attacked about the Obama Administration's record on deportation, the media wants to offer a more balanced view of the problem. Before Biden was attacked, only Trump was the evil immigration bully. The media has done a great job influencing public perception up to this point. Now that Biden has to defend the truth, the public will better understand reality.
14
@Once From Rome How selective: it's as if the corporate media never criticized Obama and his aggressive approach to illegal immigration. It's as if trump and his cult are mere victims...
1
Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately overdue. To effectively pass such a reform, the Dems need to admit there is a problem and forget about sacred cows such as "sanctuary cities" or calls for an open border or abolishment of ICE. There needs to a legal path to citizenship for many who have been here for years, a better temporary work visa program, and an admission that no country can survive with unregulated and free migration.
We need to couple this with addressing to root cause of migration in the first place. If we are concerned about migration caused by drug gang violence maybe we need to kick our drug habits here at home.
80
@JeffB In your comment you stated what Dems 'need to admit' but I don't see any reference to what Repubs 'need to admit'. How about Repubs 'need to admit' that there needs to be a legal path to citizenship form many who have been here for years'? Would that be reasonable?
16
@JeffB--We wouldn't be seeing so many sanctuary cities, or have the calls to abolish ICE if the Trump administration did not consciously break the law to enforce its immigration policies. (By the way, no Democratic leader is calling for open borders.) If Trump started dealing with his immigration mess rationally and legally, the Dems would also scale back their calls for drastic reform. All Democrats want is for the migrants seeking asylum and the visa overstayers and those who failed to attend their immigration hearings to be treated humanely and in accordance with US law. That should be what we all want and it shouldn't be hard to do. Other administrations have managed it, but for some reason it is beyond the ability of Trump.
12
Trump will win again on the immigration issue alone, perhaps by a landslide.
14
@Carol--You Trump folks making these blanket predictions about this, that or the other ensuring Trump's reelection are so tiresome. A little reality, please. There is absolutely no proof that what you claim has any truth to it. Millions of Americans are fed up with Trump's immigration policies, or lack of them, and as the days go by many more want to see a return to the sane, legal and humane policies of past administrations. And, immigration is not the only issue that will decide the 2020 election. For many, it's not even the most important issue. You might want to temper your predictions for a few more months at least, until you see how things turn out. After all, knowing Trump, immigration could be vanished from the news by this time next year, replaced with some other mess he's created that everyone is up in arms about. A wait-and-see attitude might work better for you.
2
By his announcement of the coming ICE deportations, the president is deliberately telegraphing the tension, fear, anger, protest and violence that he knows will meet his trumpeted order.
With purposeful malice aforethought, the president is fomenting street conflict, believing that his parochial political interests are somehow advanced by making the country less safe and more damaged for ordinary citizens.
In any reasonable world, such behavior would be criminal. It would require duly constituted authority to hold it fully to lawful account. The president refuses any accountability, for this or any other miscreance, at home or abroad.
Trump openly, brazenly and contemptuously throws a gauntlet across the face of the Constitution, not just Democratic Party. In stout response, the Democratic Party sits on its hands, eating its own seed corn, a tactic that worked wonders in 2016.
1
All Presidents are Deporters in Chief, but not all presidents see deportation as their chief duty.
This one does.
And that is a malign distortion of the office of the presidency.
4
This article was a good start in the right direction per president and the difference between deported and returned. It just needs part 2.
The article fails to tell us about the legislation that failed by Party. When the Democrats controlled Congress (both Houses) what type of legislation was voted for re Immigration? Has either Party held up useful legislation to increase legal immigration? Which party supports the Dreamers and put forth laws to protect them? Why didn't it get passed?
The whole of immigration should be handled a little differently. Farmers should be allowed to import workers to work in the field to harvest their crops. They should have to tell immigration who and how many workers they need, and those workers should get a pass of some sort to prove they are here for a specific purpose, with an expiration date. If they stay beyond the expiration date, they should be deported and banned from returning for several years. I think something like this is in place, but the Farmers and Companies should face a heavy fine (a % of their gross intake) to stop this.
Applying for a green card should be shortened to a year instead of 5 years per average.
Money should be spent for extra judges and different types of border security (agents, dogs, drones, etc.) as was put up by the Democratic Senators with the money $ 45B? approved to make this happen. Which party blocked it?
This would give the reader a more accurate picture of immigration.
2
Here in nearby Imokelee Fl ICE has been knocking on doors already, plunging the entire area into a frenzy
1
The Democratic leadership and party faithful best get their heads around the fact that unless they coalesce around a useful immigration policy, they will lose in 2020.
Wailing about facilities and eliminating ICE are not policies.
If you stole money and started a family with it, you would not receive leniency once caught. So enough with the excuses.
Illegal immigration is illegal, and most Americans want it stopped and now. And for just enough people that means a vote forTrump and theGOP
15
The US proximity to Central America on the southern border is the problem there, as opposed to Canada for example, where it is extremely difficult to immigrate to at all, and they are not facing desperate people, unqualified folks, or perhaps opportunistic terrorists and other undesirables trying to get in. Trump doesn't help his cause in many things, but the problem is here, with or without him, and needs to be addressed in the right way. Don't be blinded by an obnoxious POTUS.
8
Big difference from his predecessors: Trump salivates regarding deportation. He relishes cruelty. And the American public goes along with him. Have we become so uncaring. Absolutely. Worse still, nothing is done about it. We shrugged our shoulders and move on. As for Congress, well...
2
Beyond the statistics of the 'removed " and" returned" categories of deportation what matters is the immigration administration through strict observance of the law and its enforcement with rigid adherence to the due process of law but in no case on the subjective choice and discretion of the president, the so called deportation in chief, as is the case with Trump administration that has crossed all the limits of law and humanity while asking the I. C. E to carry out raids and the midnight knocks on the doors of the detention centres to traumatise ans terrorise the poor immigrants, their children, and relatives.
In talking about immigrants and asylum seekers, Senator Bernie Sanders emphasized the need to put more resources into humane treatment and the asylum process.
But he also emphasized that much needs to be done, working with all involved countries to assure safe productive lives for people in their home countries.
Throughout the world the US has wrecked or destabilized countries in order to prove its dominance and protect its national interest, its corporations and global elites.
Enforcing capitalism was essential, democracy was not.
Its actions have made many countries unlivable and violent and their people are forced to migrate.
The US has an obligation to repair this countries.
Few paid attention at the time, or remember now, but one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as Secretary of State was to support a coup in Honduras wanted by US business interests. After that coup, violence spiked in Honduras and that there are tens of thousands of Honduran families seeking asylum in the US is the result.
Again, as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, refused to allow a UN negotiated Syrian peace accord to proceed in 2012, because it did not demand Syrian President Assad's removal. In 2012 some six million Syrians began to flee the violence and seek refuge in Europe... the backlash was Brexit and a changed Europe.
That was the result of the US actions... can't be blamed on the oh so useful bogeyman Russia.
3
Nonsense.
Clinton didn’t support the coup; she called for new elections, which were due anyway. And the stuff about Syria is just silly.
1
There really shouldn't be any esoteric arguments about deporting immigrants who have received a final deportation notice.
13
We need to increase legal immigration and get those living in the shadows on the grid and contributing to Social Security -- so we Boomers and collect, I say selfishly. Otherwise, our proportions of old to young will be way out of whack (following in the footsteps of longsuffering Japan). That's the practical argument without even getting into the enormous benefits offered by immigration. No all caps, thank you. :) https://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html
The current detention centers that people decry were put in place by President Obama. Trump may have taken it to the next level but let’s not imagine he created them.
7
trump is pandering to the worst of his supporters (as always) with his draconian, inhumane conditions at the border and beyond. MAGA folks like say that "Obama did it", or "Clinton did it" "stop picking on trump". Well yes those administrations did attempt to deal with the problem of illegal immigration as shown by the data in this article but they did NOT create a humanitarian crisis with the skill and ferocity of the trump administration. That this is being done in my name with my tax dollars is particularly galling.
4
Too little too late. Democrats have already hurled themselves off the cliff on this issue.
12
So many here on this board have no idea how they got their citizenship.
Why the heck are there people floating around with deportation orders? Why aren’t those deported taken directly to the airport?’ where are the ankle monitors to track them for pickup later? The whole immigration enforcement system in the US appears to be built around one simple principle: cross the border, and there’s no risk of being kicked out.
What about this animating principle: 90% of illegal aliens are back in their homes within 14 days of crossing the border?
10
The taking of "collateral" people - the people who just happen to be in the same place as the person named in the warrant is unacceptable but seems to be the crown-jewel in Trump's version of the process. It takes more people out of the community and spreads fear. My guess is that the leaders of ICE measure performance based on numbers of people apprehended not sticking to those named on the legal warrants.
Of course, all of this is based in the process of dehumanization. These are no longer human beings, they are, according to our President, "criminals, rapists, drug dealers and (unfortunately) possibly a few good people."
Americans who fear that they are being overthrown by non-white, non-English speaking "Illegals" is galling and they blame all their woes on those beings who they feel cause all their problems - "if only..."
Yet, the statistics say that white Americans commit more crimes, murders, than undocumented people living and working in the community. For them, shooting somebody who doesn't look or speak like you in a bar is justifiable homicide. If you are undocumented a parking ticket should get you deported.
We, as a nation are going backwards to the "bad old days" and a lot of Americans seem to celebrate.
1
"All Presidents Are Deporters in Chief"
As he Executive, it is the job of the President to enforce the laws made by Congress. If he's not doing that, he's not doing his job. If you you don't like the laws, check with Congress.
10
@Amy
Surely the folks who are anxious the illegals would be willing to negotiate with Trump a deal to allow them to stay.
1
As a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen, I cannot understand people's objection to deportation.
Just because there is porous border, it does not mean people have the right to cross it at will and expect to stay in the US without consequences. Sure, some of these deportations are very heartrending, due to the fact that some have stayed here long, have children who know no other country then the US, and so on. But that is not to say that illegal crossings are to be encouraged.
One of the reasons Trump got elected is because most people agreed with his position on illegal immigration. It is fooling to think that people's views have changed on illegal immigration.
Democrats risk losing badly if they even hint at open borders. What they need to do is propose polices that would make it *very* costly for businesses (or even individuals, for that matter) to hire illegal aliens. Jobs and a better life are what prompts people to take great risks to cross the border. Once jobs are hard to come by, the flow of illegal immigrants will slow down.
14
Gee, what if we didn't have politics by check? What if politicians actually worked for the public good instead of maneuvering like jumping spiders for fundraising issues?
it's not clear either party wants to fix immigration. It's such a handy voter motivation tool that we know how someone will vote based on their immigration position.
As long as our elected representatives need to raise money from voters, they will continue to work for that money and not for the people.
1
I can’t help but notice that nobody goes after the employers. But, at least the last two Democratic Presidents at least did something. Clinton creates E-Verify in 1996, and Obama tried to make its use mandatory. Both were opposed by the GOP and employer groups.
Like healthcare, the GOP talks a big game but will not actually do anything constructive. Especially when it may hurt employers like Trump National Golf Club Westchester that hire undocumented workers.
17
The best deterrent to mass migration is a decent life in one's home country. That is the case now, and it always has been.
If our administration were serious about national security (which they are not) funds would be diverted to effective foreign aid from our military budget -- to European countries for help in dealing with Middle Eastern and African refugees -- to Central American countries, to assist them with infrastructures fixes, agriculture, and gang violence.
Diplomacy and foreign aid work. The kind of "deterrence" this administration is touting is only about politics.
4
@EMiller
Could you please cite one, just one, example in which "Diplomacy and foreign aid work" to deliver "a decent life" in countries that export millions of their people north to civilized countries. It must be true, and quite common, since you say it is so. But just one example would help me better understand and agree with your erudite opinion.
1
@EMiller
Over the decades, American taxpayers have funneled $trillions into those 3rd world countries, with little to show.
The #1 issue is poverty, the taproot cause overpopulation. Throw into that maw the $hundred of billions each year, as we do, but the torrential flood of global economic migration will never alleviate until those nations rein in their culture and politics that are ruled by conservative Catholic and evangelical misogyny. The highest birth rates in the world are in Central America and Africa, both where so much unnecessary legal and unwanted illegal immigration stems.
2
Thank you to the New York Times editorial staff for addressing the yawning gap between Trump’s inhumane and ineffective policies and the incomplete immigration plan proposed by Senator Warren and positions taken by other Democratic candidates, who completely dodge the question of how to humanely limit immigration in order to keep US population growth sustainable. If immigrants were generally able to earn enough money to support their households without chronic reliance on food stamps and other means-tested benefits, then a liberal immigration policy would be a win-win, but sadly, that’s not the case in a country where tens of millions of full-time workers struggle to get by. Laws and policies that facilitate immigration for anyone seeking a better life will only worsen the problem by increasing the supply of workers with limited English and job skills.
Immigration laws should be like prostitution laws and target the demand, rather than the supply. Create an agricultural worker visa similar to Canada’s successful program and provide a path to permanent residency for highly productive manual laborers. Audit rigorously and levy huge fines on employers who hire workers not approved by E-Verify. Targeting enforcement on desperately poor people with nothing to lose is a recipe for frustration and failure. Instead, address the labor market, and immigration will take care of itself.
9
@Jan Allen
Thank you for this clear, cogent response to the editorial above. Immigration is an extremely complex problem, requiring in return complex and thoughtful responses to the issue. All Americans should consider the effects immigration, legal or not, has on the economy, the education system, health care, Social Security, social and familial stresses, safety, international relations, community cohesion, the list goes on. Thinking about this issue solely in emotional terms will end in disaster.
4
@Jan Allen You imply that immigrates can not earn enough to support their families and rely on food stamps. The program is not the immigrants, but the employers that don't pay a living wage and the failure of programs to integration them into communities. There is a very short period of time for federal funds to be paid to these groups, so immigrates without a supportive community are on their own. The period of time that the majority receive any benefits is actually less then that of many Americans. They came here to make a better life for themselves, not to live of government benefits. If you travel abroad, you might like getting a real Mexican meal in you local town, not one from Taco Bell. Having spent many years in the Army, when I hear a foreign accent I don't tell them to back home, but ask where are you from an start a conversation. I am not close minded. I have seen how hard life can be outside of American comforts.
1
@Dave Having spent many years working for local companies overseas, I speak Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish with a foreign accent when I meet immigrants who speak those languages. You are correct that low wages are a problem we need to address. You are incorrect in assuming short time limits on aid to US citizen children. We need to raise wages for adult workers, see the impact on employment, and adjust immigration accordingly.
2
"How Many is Too Many?: The progressive argument for reducing immigration into the US" by Philip Cafaro: see page 178 for a reasonable US immigration policy.
2
Yes Obama was a deporter like every other president before him. But we never saw children in cages, infants ripped from their mother's arms, asylum seekers drinking from toilets and dying in filthy, overcrowded and diseased detention centers. These are crimes against humanity and those responsible will have to be prosecuted if and when our country every regains a respectable government -- and its sanity.
99
@Christy
The only migrant child who has been “caged” had wandered into a cage at a rally for immigrants’ rights. A photo-journalist who was sympathetic to unauthorized migrants took the child’s photo. It went viral before he admitted that the child had NOT been caged by the government.
When unaccompanied minors (or minors who come here with adults who are not their parents) first arrive, they are processed by the border patrol before being sent to a bed in a shelter run by Health and Human Services. The border patrol may be operating in a cavernous building. Instead of holding all of the migrants together, without any sorting as to age or gender, the border patrol may section its building into rooms divided by movable wire wall sections. The resulting rooms are just as large as those in buildings with plaster walls. The advantage of wall sections made of wire is that they allow the authorities to make sure no migrant is being attacked and they allow the migrants to see what everyone else is doing or to call out for attention, if needed. The border patrol has been dividing their large halls with movable wire wall panels for years. No one complained before Trump became president.
A migrant said she had to drink from the toilet to quench her thirst. The border patrol said she did not know how to turn on the sink faucet.
The huge numbers of migrants meant that HHS ran out of funds to house all of them so they became backed up in the border patrol facility.
34
@Christy
It happened. You just didn't see it because the Obama administration quietly pursued those same policies and the sympathetic news media was alternately none the wiser and didn't want to rock that boat.
27
@ann
Unaccompanied minors and minors who arrive without their parents are transferred to a Health and Human Services facility as soon as there are beds available for them. Once a minor is in an HHS facility, counselors will begin to search for a less restrictive setting where he can wait for his court hearing. HHS tries to find a minor’s relative (preferably a parent) who can pass a criminal background check and who is willing to take responsibility for the minor until his hearing. If no such relative is available, the minor might be placed in a temporary foster home.
The Immigration Service warned Congress for months that it lacked funding to properly care for the huge numbers of minors requesting asylum. HHS was running out of money to temporarily house the minors and find their relatives. As a result, minors were being backed up at border patrol facilities.
Some progressive Democrats refused to give the Immigration Service any more money because they feared some of it would be used to deport those whose requests for asylum have been denied. Without adequate funds, the Immigration Service has not been able to deport many migrants. Seeing that migrants are not being returned to their home countries, more of their fellow countrymen have decided to come here, too. They have increased the crowding at border control facilities.
Even though some Democrats refused to go along, Congress has finally increased funding for the Immigration Service.
16
So after moths of preparation and with a huge PR machine backing it - Trump is starting an operation to capture and expel 2000 illegal immigrants (out of a 10 million estimated total). This is less than the more than 4000 people DAILY crossing into US. Most of them will be back in the country (and their jobs) in a few months (having gone to visit their family). I know fools will be fooled - but is anybody really going to state that " at least he is doing something" about the problem?
5
Oh well, that's all right then.
Carry on.
I think the soul of the US has very little likelihood of being saved.
2
There’s deportation, and then there’s gleeful, gratuitous Cruelty. The best quote ever from a Trump Fan, in these very pages :
“ He’s not hurting the right people “. THATS who they are, that’s why they continue to worship him, even to their own obvious detriment. Hate supersedes reason, every single time.
Thanks, GOP. 2020.
4
Pence said, in a press conference, that he didn't necessarily believe the caged detainees when they shouted out how long they'd been there.
So, one point that follows is that Pence could have asked the staff how long the men had been there.
The larger point is that Pence picked an interesting time to show skepticism. This is the person who nods when Trump lies.
3
If illegal Immigration is reduce to a "speeding ticket", I am not waiting in line for two hours at customs when I return home. I'll just line jump. What are they going to do? Give my a $74 ticket?
14
Is it a hard decision to follow the established rule of law? Change the process for illegals to gain quicker access to citizenship. Politicians, it’s all in your hands, stop the theater and take action.
4
That’s all nice stuff you printed there but the bottom line is that there is a huge overwhelming influx of aliens that has now reached a breaking point. Our politicians have managed to accomplish next to nothing over several decades. As obnoxious as this president is, what has the leadership of both parties done to solve this problem. At different times both parties have had complete control of the government and yet here we sit.
19
Hopefully this article puts to rest that Obama left unsecured borders; and also shows that a President can be humane while enforcing the laws!
5
@VS
While having the majority in Congress but also not fixing what had been broken since the 1960s by Democrats.
1
@VS...Obama did complete construction of the "fence" along several hundred miles of the Southwest border that was legislated in 2007. Good on #44. He also turned back potential immigrants before they could actually jump his fence or Pelosi's immoral wall. Good on #44. Didn't he also call the situation at the border a crisis?
5
Looking forward to a comprehensive solution. In the meantime, could we have better journalism. Perhaps interview a supporter of strong enforcement. Or, ask an undocumented worker whether he’s concerned about the harm that might be caused by driving without insurance, or using another’s identity, or, why, if you’ve been ordered to leave, are you still here? Finally, ask a Central American refugee, why they don’t settle in Mexico, the first country of asylum—like one million American retirees. Hire some neutral reporters, preferably one with a law degree, and get the whole story. I thought that’s what I was paying for.
14
Removals and returns are euphemisms for the same thing: The deportation of people illegally in the U S. But according to the story, what Trump does is bad, but what Obama did was ok. Obama’s schizoid Deportations vs DACA approach to the immigration problem was a calculated move to appear sympathetic to illegal immigrants, but in reality a move to get Hispanic votes and keep them quiet. And the tragedy is that the same Hispanics who voted for democrats saw the deportation of neighbors and relatives who are now crying wolf. Had he and his administration pushed for a better deal to solve the illegal immigration problem we wouldn’t be having this dilemma. With DACA and tolerating millions of illegals, Obama handed a political golden egg to Trump. And democrats seem unable to come up with a workable solution fair to illegals and acceptable to US citizens who will vote for Trump in 2020.
9
The brutal incarceration of immigrants, especially children, must be ended regardless of what our immigration policy is. Treating these people as subhuman must not be tolerated ever. trump and his advisers set out deliberately to hurt people, that is not a policy any American should ever support.
2
There is no comparison between trump, a man without a moral compass, easily persuaded by amoral Steve Miller, a man who will be indicted for crimes against humanity one day, and other presidents who had to make difficult decisions.
Ripping families apart is so unAmerican, so inhumane, so fraught with memories of another time, when the leaders of other countries resorted to implement their lowest, their basest instincts.
trump is of that ilk: inhuman and without moral compass.
1
People who do not enter legally need to leave.
21
But not the way Trump is doing it. And you agree? For shame!
Without stronger enforcement, Trump will get re-elected.
Is that what you want?
12
@Addison Clark YES!
According to MIT research, there are 22 million illegal aliens in the country, not 11 million. Thirty years years ago Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in exchange for Democrats agreeing to reduce illegal immigration and close the porous border. What did they do? Nothing. So now we are overwhelmed and Americans are fed up after 30 years of Congressional intransigence. Worse, Democrats now want Americans to provide amnesty to more non-citizens (DACA) and cry over border conditions that they themselves created by encouraging illegal migrants to abuse the weak asylum laws. Not only did they encourage this mass migration, but they are now promising free healthcare, protection from lawful ICE raids, and pristine conditions while illegal aliens are in detention. What’s not to like? Each time a Democrat promises free healthcare for illegal immigrants and refuses to change asylum laws, Donald Trump gets one more vote from frustrated independents and liberals. Trump won on immigration - and he’ll win again
21
I can’t imagine that anyone believes that Trump is concerned about “deterrence” or security. He’s concerned about politics, about firing up the issue and keeping the Democrats’ knees jerking in response. I don’t mean to downplay either Trump’s callous use of powerless people for his own ends, or the Democrat’s obligation to respond to the moral outrage of the sadistic games he plays. But unless they want to become actors in his fascist political theater, the Democrats should be careful to talk about reality instead of playing politics. We all want secure borders. We are all of us—consumers, employers & undocumented immigrants—implicated in the the problem of undocumented labor that has been going on for as long as the country has existed, and finding a solution would mean changes for all. We want an asylum process that is fair and efficient, and we should have foreign & climate policies that address, rather than exacerbate, the problem of refugees.
2
by increasing the representation of an area with non-citizens you are in effect disenfranchising citizens.
12
@Pluribus10 Except that the Constitution as written by the founders does not draw any distinction between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to representation. And the US operated peacefully and successfully under this arrangement for more than two centuries. Now you (and Trump) are introducing this distinction and demanding that citizens receive special consideration for the first time. The result is to create a new field for divisiveness, mistrust, and hatred.
2
Immigration is primarily dependent on “The Land-Man (Land-Humankind) Ratio.”
When you have more land than people, you generally have peace. Wars break out when the opposite is true.
During the early years of our country, EVERYONE was welcomed, and in FACT, were GIVEN LAND.
Today, we face a very serious problem. It’s not as much about land as economics and a safe harbor from violence.
Physical barriers have been with us since the beginning of time. All cities at one time were in effect a fortress and usually built on a hill to protect its residents. Walls are only temporary. Think of the Great Wall of China; the wall separating East & West Germany. Where are they now?
Where are the “Walls” between the U.S. and Canada? It’s NOT an OPEN BORDER either!
All countries have a right to protect their territories.
We live in The United States of America; NOT the United States of Mexico!
We need to have borders! We also need enforcement at those borders. The biggest question is how can we do this fairly with civility. I just refuse to believe that a country as great as America can’t come up with solutions to a problem that has been going on far too long.
7
The chart of deportations under Clinton is drastically wrong if the reported count is correct. There should be less than two rows of figures under the left “removals” side.
2
Articles such as these should also mention the Family Case Management program, a humane way to process asylum seekers and keep families together. Used during the Obama administration, the program provided a case manager to families who helped the family navigate immigration court and procedures. It had a 99% compliance with check-ins and 100% compliance for court hearings.
This program was terminated by ICE as a "cost saving" measure, but it looks to me like the program wasn't cruel enough to serve as a deterrent, and was maybe too successful in its mission to help those seeking asylum. I've heard that some of the detention camps cost over $700 per day per person. Certainly the Family Case Management program is more cost-effective than that extremely high cost.
Responsible journalists and politicians need to voice that more humane strategies for the migrant crisis are available but not being used by the Trump administration. We do not have to have overcrowding in detention centers.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/restore-the-family-case-management-program-for-asylum-seekers/
1
I'm curious for a show of hands, do you think the border situation was being reported as critically and fairly under Obama as it is under Trump? Did you have the same concern for border conditions then as you do now? Did you even know what border conditions were like then?
8
@TCR I take it that your point is that’s it isn’t “fair” to point out incompetence and cruelty when Trump is in charge.
1
@TCR Obama was the "deporter in Chief"(remember?). trump is the first prez to put so much spotlight on this issue while simultaneously mismanaging it so horribly. As the article poimts out we'll always have to manage immigration (at least until the U.S. becomes more ulivable than Mexico or Central America), ots the cruelty and ineptitude we can do without.
This argument is so complex that it’s devastatingly simple: executive deportations must be based first upon humanitarian principles. A president who is grounded in hemispheric history and domestic politics should be able to sort out some of the tangles.
President Obama had a responsibility to his oath of office to the Constitution and to “We, the People” to deport criminals and those who posed security risks. Not all of the decisions were clean and neat—they can’t be. Sometimes the innocent fall through the cracks and find themselves on the other side of right. That’s unfortunate.
Contrast President Obama’s grappling with the asylum-seekers’ surge along the southwest border with Mexico and his successor’s attempts to brand all who come here as “rapists” and “drug smugglers” and it’s quite easy to understand the racist, xenophobic motivation behind his chaotic and inhumane approach to a problem that is far worse than Mr. Obama’s.
The immigration situation, under No. 44, was just another problem. Under 45, it’s his only problem, a policy of misguided executive orders and Twitter rants that pass for American policy. He surrounded himself with like-minded nationalist zealots who think that taking a hammer to an egg will open the shell.
No president, I suppose, enjoys giving desperate people bad news: “Sorry; we can’t take you.” But the current president trashes niceties: “Get out and stay out,” he snarls. “And we’ll put your kids in cages and you won’t see ‘em again.”
Sad.
1
The difference between the current occupant of the White House and his predecessors is they did not try and appeal to a rabid, hate filled base of people who have bigotry in their hearts towards immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latino's, gays and transgenders. They did not try and get elected by appealing to Americans basest instincts. They did not repeatedly lie to the American people with the sole purpose of causing them to fear an enemy that in reality does not exist.
Franklin Roosevelt once said "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." Our current President does not agree with that at all.
I am 69 years old and have lived thru many important changes in our nation. I have seen the best and worst of America.
At our best we reach down to lift others up. At our best we push for equality, fairness, decency, and that America can only rise when we help each other to rise.
The emergency responders that went up flight after flight on 911 to help save lives did not care what the color of the person's skin they were trying to rescue was, they did not care what their religious faith was, or what language they spoke or whom they choose to love or how they voted. They represented the best of America.
Unfortunately, we have a President who believes in cruelty and who delights in dividing us and is enthralled by the polarization he has caused.
I pray to God this madness ends in 2020.
1
What is sorely needed, yesterday, is that we separate and deport the entire Trump crime family, and their enablers, to Russia where they could plunder and destroy there rather than here. If the tyrant-dictator Mr. T wants Putin, then go be with him and leave us alone.
What's this? A nuanced article about trade-offs of different border policies?
Putting the content aside for a minute, I just want to say that civil, rational discussion on a complex issue (as the Times presented here) will do far more to advance the US towards a solution on this than empty shouts of racism and "concentration camps." Pragmatism and compromise must rise above the vocal minority of ideologues and "no middle ground"-ers.
1
"That’s because the [presidential] office comes with the responsibility to enforce the nation’s laws — laws that require that the borders be secure and that some of the people who aren’t legally authorized to live here be deported, after being afforded due process.”
Which laws say that only "SOME of the people who aren’t legally authorized to live here have to be deported”. Don’t our laws apply equally to everyone? Shouldn’t every unauthorized migrant, who does not qualify for asylum, be deported?
If we do not deport every illegal migrant, we are advertising to potential migrants around the world that it is O.K. to move here without authorization … if you are not convicted of murdering someone, you will eventually be offered a path to citizenship.
6
As executive leader, it's the president's job to make sure that the laws on the books written by the legislature and approved by the judiciary are executed.
As the laws stands, people who are here illegally must be deported. Obama, Clinton, the Bushes and Trump had to enforce the laws or they wouldn't be fulfilling their job responsibility.
5
The American public is fed-up with fake asylum seekers fragrantly violating out nation's sovereignty. The open borders Democrats are completely out of touch with public sentiment on this issue and it will cost them the election.
10
@Chuck....If you believe that this is a problem caused by Democrats then you have to explain why when Obama left office illegal immigration into the U.S. was at a 40 year low and there were no caravans of asylum seekers crossing Mexico. No. This is a problem that has occurred on Trump's watch. Just as the recently departed British ambassador said, the Trump Administration is inept and incompetent. Some people will believe anything they hear on Fox News without regard to facts.
A very selective opinion indeed. No full view of Obama’s 8 years in office vice Bush and no annual average of Obama’s 8 years vice Trump’s. When will the “they’re the same” argument end? How is the torture of children not the main theme? Two sentences on “deterrence”? Wow.
Donald Trump is nasty and that is his problem with immigration. Yes, people are fleeing injustice, war and now we have an increase in climate change events. It is about time, we think about global solutions.
“We’re focused on criminals”, says the man who consistently disregards the law, including Supreme Court decisions, commits obstruction, violates the emoluments clause on a daily basis, uses his political office for personal gain, undoubtedly cheats on his taxes and has illegal off-shore accounts, used charitable donations to have pictures of himself painted and placed in this tacky country clubs, and has been credibly accused by 20 women, so far, of sexual assault. His ex-wife even accused him of raping her. And oh, did I mention he was convicted of refusing to rent or sell properties to black people?
I guess, for people like Donald Trump, those aren't really "crimes". For people like him, the "real criminals" are those who are trying to escape violence or persecution, and are doing whatever they think is necessary to try and make a better life for themselves and their families - A desire which, to me, represents the essence of the American Dream, as much as Donald Trump personifies an American Nightmare.
In the past two years, over 40,000 migrants walked from NY state in Quebec seeking refugee status. Many say they are persecuted in the US. Of course some of them are lying but some of them could be telling the truth.
1
Trump's approach is cruel.
But is it more cruel than what has been done in the past or is it just more obviously cruel?
People die in the desert, almost at the rate of one per day. The US Border Patrol reported 294 migrant deaths in the fiscal year 2017 (ending September 30, 2017), which was lower than in 2016 (322), and any year during the period 2003-2014.
My fingers hurt writing this, but Trump has finally made our country pay attention to this problem. And maybe he will finally force congress to come up with a solution.
Because nobody has offered a solution. Trump's wall idea is certainly nutty.......except maybe it isn't. Maybe knowing that there is an impenetrable wall will discourage people from trying, and that will keep people from dying.
Maybe we need to look past our distaste for Trump and at least make ourselves ask if a wall should be built--not for the racist reasons Trump has underlying his policies, but because it will prevent deaths.
And if you don't like that idea, propose something else that can keep us from having open borders and not cause deaths.............crickets.
3
If we stopped turning illegal immigration and asylum seeking into a privatized business and made it a non-profit one, we would end the cruelty. Also, for a country's right hand to ignore climate change around the world but its left hand to penalize those being destroyed by it, is hypocritical. When we imprison people for any reason, we are responsible for their health and their care until they are no longer imprisoned. Children should be cared for as we would our own children. What the heck is wrong with America??
1
Enforcing the laws that Congress passed is not government coercion.
10
@Dr. John Right, so why isn’t Treasury handing over those subpoenaed tax returns from the fraud in the White House?
2
@Christopher
Because it is not required by law.
2
@Dr. John Except that it is, Doctor. I’ll guess we’re not dealing with a right-wing crank with a JD.
1
The editorial fails to distinguish between those who return voluntarily and those who are "returned" against their will. The latter, when added to those who are removed, is a more accurate measure of government coercion.
It would also be helpful if the editorial were to break down the ethnicity of those coerced to leave to expose cultural, racial, religious bias in the selection process.
1
Excellent article (with data!) that accurately points out that this is not a new problem, and that it's far more complicated and nuanced than one would gather from biased reporting on both sides of the debate.
Immigration is the key ingredient of Mr Trump's divisive rhetoric. Judging from the comments about this article, his rhetoric, bloviating, and inhumane policies are working by dividing not "Americans", but by further dividing moderates and those of us further left on four other issues - climate change, health care, relations with foriegn allies and enemies, and the death of our constitutional democracy and rule of law.
Hopefully the candidate who emerges from the 20 + candidates will take head and produce a humane policy that we can ALL live with, a policy that will not divide those of us who will not tolerate another 4 years of this horror show.
Thank you for this reasoned essay. Yes, if Democrats (including me) wish to defeat Trump in 2020, we must accept the sacrifices and trade-offs involved in any immigration policy. We must support a candidate who offers a viable alternative to Trump's inflammatory actions. This will still involve deportation. But the terms of the policy should be clear, fair, consistent, and humane.
2
People's demand to live in the US in no way obligates us to accommodate them. The costs are astounding. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to go through a false asylum claim. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing, medical, food, guarding costs. Millions in new facilities. 144000 a month means we need at least thirty thousand new homes a month. Three hundred new trained doctors a month. A new hospital a month. Half a dozen new schools a month. Every month. Forever. As long as we are dealing with this we can't deal with much else. I am astounded that citizens fail to consider the long term costs associated with this mess. And all so people can take advantage of desperate people- exploiting them while claiming to be helping them.
54
@willt26 If the people are seeking asylum from horrific political and safety conditions in their home countries, we are actually obligated-- by both US and international law-- to accomodate them with a hearing to determine whether they have enough cause to fear returning to their home countries to justify granting safe haven here. Sometimes the safe haven is temporary, sometimes it's longer term, and always it carries conditions. Want to speed up the process and clear the blockage at the border? Get a better, more efficient process going, one that actually assigns case numbers and links to related individuals, decent, government run housing for families and individuals, and adequate numbers of immigration lawyers and judges to handle the volume. What we have now is deliberate cruelty and inhumanity, and it reflects poorly on us as a bation, especially when smaller, less wealthy countries are taking in more refugees per capita than we are.
6
@willt26, how did America do it when millions of immigrants have poured in during the last 300 years? Seriously. You're bemoaning the building of infrastructure that benefits you too? The growth of cities and towns; vibrant communities with lots of different people who mix together and build hospitals, schools, libraries and parks, etc. The rate of home building is considered a foundational economic marker in the U.S.A. We are a nation comprised of nothing but immigrants, at least the white culture you fear losing. America benefits in the long run from immigrants. Your ancestors and your history tell you this, but you have turned instead to wide-eyed belief in trump's claims that America is in helpless terror at people knocking at our door.
A new hospital a month? More doctors and schools? Do you even hear yourself? Oh, and our nation CAN deal with more than one thing at a time, like poverty AND NK. Or hiring more immigration processors AND trips for Ivanka.
3
@Kathleen Flacy Why should we shoulder these enormous costs? That is money which should be going to our own dispossessed.
8
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
293
@Mon Ray
”Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants,"
Speak for yourself. I just saw the reaction to the "Fairness in High-Skilled immigration Act" that the House passed this past week. It doesn't even increase legal immigration. It simply does away with discrimination based on national origin currently enshrined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In the immigrant-welcoming world you imagine, there would have been a Times Editorial celebrating the bipartisanship that led to this bill's passage, if not the attempt to end the discrimination itself. Nope. There's not even a news story.
Breitbart of course ran a piece that tore into it, in the process also tearing into their own thin veil around their racism. Let's leave that aside for now.
It's more complicated than LEGAL or ILLEGAL. Most Americans have their own definition of a DESERVING immigrant. Legality has little to do with it. You can point out all day that H1B fraud can and should be treated as a separate problem, but many see the entire H1B program as little more than a vehicle to satisfy corporate America's greed. Never mind that it is a legal program with checks, and never mind that without it, America wouldn't have any meaningful conduit for capability based legal immigration.
Most Americans are absolutely clueless about what it takes to immigrate to this country legally today. Yet, for most, that abject ignorance doesn't get in the way of their making a claim that they are "pro legal immigration".
40
@Mon Ray
What makes you think anyone "encouraged" them to bring their children with them? Don't you think they just might happen to be parents? Were they supposed to abandon them before making the trip?
23
@Mon Ray
And what are they supposed to do with their children, particularly if they really do feel in danger, or even just in danger of starving?
As to the ones who are really seeking asylum, bringing the kids might be the first concern. If my kid was threatened, I'd be right out of there WITH her.
22
This was a very honest editorial, but it comes on the heels of more than two years of inflammatory stories which gave readers the impression that Trump created the system he inherited.
Curiously, there were very few mainstream stories about the plight of illegal immigrants during the Obama administration, and I don’t recall any mass rallies or crying news anchors back then either.
So what changed?
Maybe journalists just never realized until 2017 that people who snuck across the border faced life threatening conditions only to end up in cages before being sent back home, but it seems more likely that the media has been using the immigrants’ plight to manufacture outrage on the left, much in the same way Trump vilified them to mobilize his base on the right.
I would guess that the reason we’re suddenly seeing such a rational, balanced editorial is that the candidates’ nonsensical, far-left immigration promises during the debates turned off more moderate Democrats than Trump in a speedo.
No country in the world can take in everyone dissatisfied with their own. It's time for the Democrats to stop speaking Spanish and start talking turkey.
98
@Gary Taustine... "which gave readers the impression that Trump created the system he inherited."....So explain the fact that when Obama left office illegal immigration into the U.S. was at a 40 year low and there were no caravans of asylum seekers crossing Mexico. No, it is not a problem Trump inherited.
10
@Gary Taustine
"...turned off more moderate Democrats than Trump in a speedo."
I cannot undo that imagery.
5
There is a not insignificant element of cruelty to the policy implementations instituted by Steven Miller and Donald Trump that is inescapable. The policies aren’t designed to be efficient, accurate, or humanitarian. They are designed to create fear, uncertainty, cruelty, and to be capricious, inhumane, chaotic, and hurtful.
This is shameful on so many levels. These are people and families, not livestock. They deserve dignity and respect - even if they should be deported. Otherwise, we’re creating the next generation of terrorists with our depraved treatment.
2
@historyRepeated We don't treat our live stock humanely either.
As a Federal law enforcement officer, one of over 30,000 who administer Title 8, United States Code directly, I can only say that immigration control under that body of laws is enforceable. One may despise the president, and indeed we don't love him for many reasons, but the immigration question is much larger even than Trump's ego, if that were possible. We need to define the kind of nation we will inhabit in future years: one that is overcrowded, lawless with self-entitled minorities who engage shamelessly in drug dealing and humani trafficking, or a nation of law-abiding and productive citizens dedicating themselves to a higher quality of life. Untrammeled immigration is not the way to accomplish anything good. I work on innumerable criminal cases that have nexus to cartels and involve huge quantities of drugs, guns, money and property. We need a severe curtailment to immigration now.
9
Can someone explain to me, what is so wrong about enforcing current US law and keeping people out who attempt to enter illegally?
10
If Dems as so concerned about conditions at detention centers, then they need to step up and provide funds for whatever level of "decency" they think is appropriate.
The answer is not release into the interior of the USA --
-- not unless and until each person in detention proves whatever claim he/she thinks he/she has to come here.
Simply making a claim -- without proving it --
is not enough to justify release into the interior of the USA.
And if Dems are so concerned about long periods of detention while awaiting a hearing on claims, then Dems need to step up and provide funds for more immigration judges and other personnel to process claims quicker.
And then, when the claims are denied --
or not pursed --
as is most often the case --
then the aliens need to be deported, ASAP,
directly from detention.
But again, the answer is not release of the aliens into the interior of the USA --
not unless and until they prove their claim to be here.
And if Dems are so concerned about supposed misbehavior by BP or other personnel taking custody of aliens, then Dems need to step up and provide funds for more and better training for those personnel --
it is a tough job.
But again, the answer is not release of the aliens into the interior of the USA --
not unless and until they prove their claims to be here..
And the Dems need to do all that funding without tying the funding with giveaways to illegals like amnesty,
or easier standards for asylum, or defunding ICE or deportations.
8
If Dems as so concerned about conditions at detention centers, then they need to step up and provide funds whatever level of "decency" they think is appropriate.
But, the answer is not release into the interior of the USA --
-- not unless and until each person in detention proves whatever claim he/she thinks he/she has to come here.
Simply making a claim -- without proving it --
is not enough to justify release into the interior of the USA.
And if Dems are so concerned about long periods of detention while awaiting a hearing on claims, then Dems need to step up and provide funds for more immigration judges and other personnel to process claims quicker.
And then, when the claims are denied --
or not pursed --
as is most often the case --
then the aliens need to be deported, ASAP,
directly from detention.
But again, the answer is not release of the aliens into the interior of the USA --
not unless and until they prove their claim to be here.
And if Dems are so concerned about supposed misbehavior by BP or other personnel taking custody of aliens, then Dems need to step up and provide funds for more and better training for those personnel --
it is a tough job.
But again, the answer is not release of the aliens into the interior of the USA --
not unless and until they prove their claims to be here..
And the Dems need to do all that funding without tying the funding with giveaways to illegals like amnesty,
or easier standards for asylum, or defunding ICE or deportations.
1
So exactly what is the right approach? Europe is awash with immigrants and even the most liberal countries are experiencing backlash. I have yet to hear a reasonable solution, just criticism.
7
All that Trump is trying to accomplish is to have an immigration system like Canada's. Canada has a generous immigration policy for individuals who can be self-sufficient and help the economy. Gate crashers are turned away and sent home. Mt. Trump wants to continue our admittance of legal immigrants at the highest level in the world provided that they are productive and turn away illegals, just like Canada. Canada, unlike us, realizes that it cannot be a welfare state for the world and take care if all the world's unfortunate, impoverished people.
10
By his announcement of the coming ICE the president is deliberately telegraphing the tension, fear, anger, protest and violence that he knows will meet his trumpeted order.
With purposeful malice aforethought, the president is fomenting street conflict, believing that his parochial political interests are somehow advanced by making the country less safe and more damaged for ordinary citizens.
In any reasonable world, such behavior would be criminal. It would require duly constituted authority to hold it fully to lawful account. The president refuses any accountability, for this or any other miscreance, at home or abroad.
Trump openly, brazenly and contemptuously throws a gauntlet across the face of the Democratic Party. In stout response, the Democratic Party sits on its hands, eating its own seed corn, a tactic that worked wonders in 2016.
2
Any 2020 candidate who supports decriminalizing illegal entry into our country will not get my vote. What country did you last visit where you could just walk in and take up residence because you wanted to. We need to pressure our Senators and Congress people to work together on a compromise legislation for immigration.
8
The onus is on Congress to solve this problem, and they've been grotesquely negligent for decades now. Instead, each president has had to formulate his own executive policies regarding deportation, and of course taken the heat for those policies.
Trump's policies are as cruel and heartless as Obama's were sane and compassionate. Trump is clearly using deliberate cruelty to send the message of deterrence. Obama focused on criminal behavior and tried to protect those who were brought here as children. Both presidents' policies have been controversial, if for different reasons.
Bottom line is that until and unless Congress finds a way to comprehensive, bipartisan reform of our immigration system, we'll continue to see a mess along our southern border, and we'll continue to attack each president for doing the only thing they can do: use executive decision making to solve a problem only Congress can solve.
2
Why doesn’t any candidate just say there want to increase the number of immigrants and give me the number they think is appropriate from each country. Shouldn’t that be the first question in any debate?
2
Just send out documents to all undocumented, use defense monies earmarked for the wall to knock central american strong arms into line, embark on an economic development campaign for the region in collaboration with neighbor countries. Send peacekeeping troops, and legalize and monitor drugs, collect taxes from those who have laundered money. Too radical or are or too scary to take on the real criminals?
1
What distinguishes the Trump Administration from his predecessors’ is that they enjoy the process and have added gratuitous terror in the way they treat the migrants. They are sadists, and they are convincing a significant fraction of the American population to join them in this warped form of pleasure. And before you tell me I’m wrong, think of examples in which Trump and his people have expressed remorse for what they are doing. Good luck.
2
The “deporter in chief” moniker plays to the immigration advocate base and some naturalized voters but it was an unspoken notch on Obama’s belt with moderates and kept him relatively free on the immigration flank for 8 years.
If we want large-scale detention centers and court-mandated child separation, that means enforcing court orders telling many processed illegal entrants or expired visa holders to return. Its sad and heart wrenching in many cases, but it’s a rational decision taking into account the reality that millions would uproot EVERY YEAR to the USA if it were a yellow brick road with neither border/port of entry enforcement or any risk of deportation once . . at the cost to the tax payer voter, wage increases and economic equality, and America’s most resource stretched communities and school districts. . . all on the eve of loss of millions of unskilled jobs loss due to automation and talks by some of GMI.
It’s tough on the heart but there’s a greater good. Obama understood that making tough decisions for long term purpose is what leaders must do. The timeless question of “what’s better for my kids and the country?” If a President or Presidential Candidate doesn’t have the stomach to enforce neither borders/ ports of entry or justice system court orders, then American sovereignty and self-determination isn’t all that important and a clear majority of Americans will be in a uproar.
3
It is extremely important for the Deporter-in-Chief to be a Democrat - in which case the criticism from the NY Times will be benign, muted and, to some extent, non-existent.
If the Deporter-in-Chief is a Republican (even worse, if he is Donald Trump), the criticism will be emphatic, relentless and loud.
There are over 7 billion people on Earth, of which half are poor. If the USA could take in those 3.5 billion people, world poverty would be eliminated. As well, the environment in crowded countries would greatly improve, by relieving the pressure from over-population.
Sadly, the poverty levels in the USA would sky-rocket and the environmental impact of another 3.5 billion people living in the USA would be difficult to manage.
By importing within its borders the tensions between various ethnic and religious groups (diversity being considered a big positive), the USA would ensure that most future wars would transpire within its borders - making the rest of the world a safer place.
Will the USA see the "wisdom" of open borders? Will the NY Times be able to convince Americans of the positive potential of eliminating world poverty by throwing the USA under the bus?
I am being ironic of course. I visit the USA regularly - it's a wonderful place. Try to keep it that way.
I am happy to go through a border check-point and to show my passport. Seems to be a safer, saner process.
7
Finally, a balanced and clear-eyed editorial about the immigration mess. If only Democrats would start sounding as reasonable. Republicans are all too happy to let voters believe that Democrats want "open borders" and no law enforcement. That perception re-elects Donald Trump and every Republican incumbent in the Senate. They are right to condemn Trump's racist anti-immigrant rhetoric and his inhumane treatment of asylum seekers in detention but they must also make it clear that they want effective controls on immigration in the best interests of our country. Hopefully, the next time their presidential candidates take the debate stage, a few of them will do that.
I watched Vice-President Pence’s bootlicking display of moral obtuseness and intellectual dishonesty at the prison camp near McAllen, TX with a sense of mounting horror and disbelief.
Why waste the country’s time, resources and energy impeaching and removing Trump from office if the man he’s to be replaced with is equally as meshuggah as he is and probably more so?
2
Like most of Trump’s policies, his immigration policy has been poorly thought through and implemented. And with predictable failure as a result.
But his detention of asylum seekers and trespassers in concentration camps is despicably cruel.
Something is seriously wrong when we treat asylum seekers worse than violent criminals and when innocent children are caged in unhealthy conditions for days.
Border controls are necessary. Not everyone who seeks asylum can get asylum. But Trump’s approach is wrong. It is not consistent with American or any religious values. What is wrong with this country that we allow this?
In 2014 there was a bipartisan Senate bill that would have addressed many immigration concerns in a humane way. McConnell would not permit it because he wanted to block Obama on everything. These are not unsolvable issues. Get it done, McConnell and Trump!
2
Of course our nation's executives enforce the laws; that's their job. But immigration is just one of many laws, and it's fair to ask why President Trump spends so much time talking about it, as opposed to the million-odd other laws the federal government is responsible for enforcing: everything from the DoD to fish and wildlife.
The answer, of course, is that it has nothing to with laws or immigration, but with politics. This is what every fascist does: find a defenseless minority to pick on and scapegoat. Even in recent memory, it's happened dozens and perhaps hundreds of times around the world. Cruelty is the point. Oldest trick in the book.
I used to think Americans were smart enough to recognize it.
3
The Editorial Board has presented a mathematical approach to an age old ethical conundrum, the demands of the law vs. ethical obligations. On the one hand we have an ethical responsibility not to harm other people, in this case, immigrants. On the other are immigration laws that created a humanitarian crisis near the Southern borders.
From childhood, we are socialized into believing that we should obey the law. We are told, "No one is above the law." But when we learn about the Underground Railroad, for example, questioning our childhood socialization becomes obvious. When we learn about how the 1924 immigration law obstructed Jews desperately trying to escape the Holocaust -- this leads immediately to questioning the legitimacy of the laws. This is obvious when we learn how much Jews, as well as other immigrants, contributed to the success of America.
Philosophers distinguish between teleological (which is about consequences) and de-ontological (which is about ethical responsibilities, independent of consequences). In immigration issues, the two approaches converge since we have an obligation not to harm immigrants, and they are an overwhelming benefit for society.
4
As always with NY Times editorials when comes to immigration, illegal aliens and legal immigrants are conflated. Everyone of the countries to the south of our border has at least a US embassy, if not several consulates. Legal immigrants would go to these diplomatic institutions and obtain a visa. Once the visa is acquired they may legally enter the United States.
Illegal aliens (the only legal term) are criminals. Not serious criminals, but criminals never the less. These people have crossed the border into the US without authorization or have overstayed a time limited visa. All of the illegal aliens should be required to leave the United States, either by arrest and deportation or voluntary removal. It is not the responsibility of American Society to provide illegal aliens better healthcare or lifestyle.
Illegal aliens are an unnecessary and unacceptable burden to the United States.
7
Every country has its laws and it is up to us if consciously we break it or not.
I can’t imagine what all these people feel, however every law enforcement, sooner or later HAS to enforce the law either we like it or not. It has happened since we talk about undocumented migrants.
What seems horrifying is the fact that we chose a sociopath to lead this country.
Trump enjoys the adulation of people, who like him, has little respect for life, women, family, friendship, needless to say diplomacy specially IF it doesn’t engorge his ego....
He loves to see the fear he can provoque on others because he has a dictator mind set.
Trump has, like many out there, always used the law, even knowing he is breaking it, to his only benefit...
Haven’t we all seen how he manipulates it? He’s done that his entire life... Cohen knows that very well....
Just two thoughts..1) the Senate passed an immigration policy -62-38 if I remember correctly-that did all the things people say they want, I.i., stricter border control, more money to hire border agents and immigration lawyers to process asylum claims more quickly, etc and President Obama said he would sign it. Why don’t we have such a law? Because John Boehner, then Speaker of the House refused to bring it to a vote! So we now have this mess 2) when the first Irish, Polish, etc undocumented immigrant’s house gets raided and they get separated from their children who were born here, then maybe I’ll believe it when 45 and his VP say what they really care about are lawbreakers. Am I holding my breath? Absolutely not..
2
This is just a note to point out that your visualization of Bill Clinton’s “removals” is flawed. It should depict the fewest removals of the four years shown but instead it suggests the opposite.
2
I'd like to see Democrats in particular show a little fealty to the laws of the land. It doesn't help (does it?) for Pete Buttigieg, for example, not to mention other Democratic presidential hopefuls, to openly advocate AGAINST aiding ICE in removing illegal migrants who have a court order to leave the country. This is open lawlessness, not just politics.
If the American people can't agree that lawful removal of illegal aliens is an essential component of a "Nation of Laws," then forget it. The Democratic presidential hopefuls unabashedly signaled to would-be border crossers that, if they are elected, free healthcare for illegal aliens is on the table.
Good grief, how can we stand by and watch this clown show? Everything in the Democrats' playbook signals "open borders." If even illegal aliens lawfully ordered to leave the country think they have "a right to stay," who is telling them that? Who is encouraging them to rip down the US flag (recently reported from Colorado) and replace it with a Mexican flag?
Guess.
9
The fact that these ICE raids are happening on a Sunday is the first insult. This is topped by the fact that it happens to be a Sunday for which the lectionary Gospel reading is on the Good Samaritan. Contrary to popular belief, this parable is not just about being nice and helping the stranger. It is about how we define who is our neighbor, whom we are commanded to love as if they are ourselves. And, it’s point is that we should not be surprised, at all, if in our hour of need, neighborly aid comes at the hands of our supposed enemy or dreaded “other” (the Samaritan, a figure of fear and loathing for the traveler who was robbed and beaten and left by the side of the road), while figures of piety (the priest) or patriotism (the Levite) leave us in the ditch to die.
1
Ask the Democrats why they opposed Kate's Law.
Bring their responses to the people until the Democrats break or until the 2020 Election Day.
5
Seems to me that Obama probably saw directing deportations as a painful responsibility of his office, whereas Trump more likely views it as a perk.
2
They come here for jobs. If you really wanted to solve the problem, arrest those who hire them which would include Trump. Once they jobs were gone, they would leave.
But that would mean arresting white people many of them Republicans so of course it will never happen.
2
There is an issue, such as deportation, and there is demagoguery about an issue for the purpose of appeal to prejudice and bigotry. Trump does not need numerical superiority to implement his “policy” of bigotry; he needs to establish his strongman status by publicly inflicting pain and torment on “criminal immigrants” in our midst. Thus he craves a symbolic wall, he publicizes his raids beforehand, forces detainees to endure inhumane conditions (a lesson learned from his pal Sheriff Joe) and destroyed the lives of children. None of these tactics serve legitimate immigration policy; the likelihood is that his actions have led to increased desperation to reach our borders before they are walled shut. They are actions in opposite to rational policy, (and resource wasteful as well) but effective in advancing Trump’s demagoguery.
And what is Trump’s “official” policy concerning the undocumented among us? “Some are good people” ....good enough to staff his properties with hard working, loyal and underpaid employees (only to be discarded as deceitful ingrates when disclosed by the press). And of course, those who have achieved legal status must be denied the human desire to reunite with their immediate family members by use of the frightening “chain migration”, a loophole which must be closed....with an exemption for Melanie’s parents.
It is not easy to see, but Trump’s approach to the economy and foreign policy follow the same formula: eschew rationality to enhance his image.
Trump could have chosen to just continue the policies of Obama and remove/return the same number of people, or even more if he chose, without creating the mess that we now have. But, he had to turn it into an 'us vs them' situation, he had to demonize and dehumanize the people he was deporting. That the present untenable situation exists is due entirely to Trump's ineffectiveness as a leader and his weird need to create chaos out of order. A great many Americans would be satisfied with the standard set by Clinton, Bush and Obama. But, Trump's policies, which are illegal and inhumane, cannot be allowed to continue. If he wants to return to the methods and numbers of past presidents he would probably have the support of many Americans. But, every day that goes by where the callous and unreasonably harsh treatment of the migrants continues more and more Americans want to see an end to it. As always, Trump has created his present nightmare, but doesn't have the capacity or understanding to fix it.
3
Yes, they are supposed to enforce the law, but that doesn't mean they have to revel in their apparent joy of appearing tough, macho and totally devoid of any feelings.
3
I support legal immigration. Yet I don't support Trump's way of demeaning, debasing and dehumanizing the process. He relishes putting people of color in a lower place. For example, he says that an American judge of Mexican heritage can't be fair to him. He trashes as many accomplishments of a former POTUS who happened to be black because of his race.
Case in point: according to the leaks of Britian's ambassador, Trump abandoned the Iran deal in act of 'diplomatic vandalism' to spite Obama. Trump's doing the same thing with Obamacare, when he has NOTHING to replace it with and leave millions with pre-existing condition hanging.
Everything is about Trump. His narcissism, his lack of self confidence and his need to be right even when he's so wrong, demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the character of this man. (Who ran from our "flag" and dodged the draft and service to his country.)
Hopefully, the majority of Americans, like last election, will vote for another leader. But this time, the electoral college will not mathematically decide otherwise.
61
@Tim B.--Like you, I support legal immigration. I never had a problem with the immigration policies of Clinton, Bush or Obama. They removed/returned hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants every year, and I supported them. Trump could have chosen to continue those same policies and continued deporting the same numbers, or even more if required, but he chose instead to create havoc and chaos out of a system that was basically operating as it should. Why he created this disorder and lawlessness is anyone's guess, but you could be right that it has something to do with Trump's insecurity and his need to dismantle his predecessors' policies. That we are now stuck in a mess that Trump is unwilling or unable to correct just leaves utter confusion for Trump's successor to clean up.
12
Thank you for your sober review of immigration policy and deportations under the last four presidential administrations. What is clear is that many would also be dissatisfied with the approach a Hillary Clinton’ administration would have taken to address the wave of immigration we are experiencing at our southern border. The sheer daily numbers alone would have frustrated even the most humane President. Nonetheless Trump's approach stands out both for its ineptitude as well as its cruelty.
5
Migration will increase exponentially with climate change; wars and political unrest so if not now when will the United States implement a fair immigration policy. We have admitted only 50 Yemeni refugees from a war we helped weaponize. We have turned away Iraqis and Afghans who worked with our troops .
How many more thousands of hopes will be crushed under the dust of the American dream before we remove the jackboot of callous immigration and fully reform immigration policies. I came here as a 7 year old Scottish immigrant and was bullied for my accent and my secondhand clothes. Let's explain to middle America hat immigrants are an opportunity not a burden when they come to join family members who give them shelter and help find employment and seducation.
2
The Editor's may be mis-characterising the issue: it isn't a "hard choice" and it isn't about "deportation." With good border standards (unfortunate existentially as any human border is), then deportations and hard choices are not then necessary, or are lessened. Trump has actually done more, much more, than any other recent politician, in both raising the visibility of the problem, and working to find some tangible solution (rather than like his counterparts, merely talking about it). Moreover, the indecency and tragedy of the whole matter stems not from Trump, but from the DNC that wants to use illegal immigrants for both voting blocks, future party members, and as a stage to use for their political grandstanding and opportunism. Otherwise, that is what leadership is all about--making hard choices--like Israel does about its borders, or Canada does about theirs. Or it is about weak leadership, like Germany's Angela Merkel, or overly sentimental and now regretted immigrant sympathies, like Sweden's, which is a disaster.
5
@Matt Andersson
Actually, it is Trump who is guilty of grandstanding.
And I suspect he knows that pulling aid from Central America, and that that--more than any deterrence policy or hardened border--will increase the movement of desperate people to the United States, giving him long-lasting "problem" to gin up hatred and fear.
1. If as President you have to have poor people thrown out of this country, knowing that you’re making their lives worse, and you find that an easy order to give, there is something seriously wrong with you.
2. It’s laughable to claim that Trump made everybody more aware of illegal immigration as a problem for three reasons: a) he’s been screaming that it’s a crisis, not a problem; b) border-crossings are down since their peaks around 2002; c) you guys have been screaming about this at the top of your lungs since Reagan “granted amnesty,” back in 1986, you blew up the bipartisan deals struck in 2006 and again in 2013, and Obama established DACA four years ago.
3. Love to see any proof at all for the typical far-right conspiracy theory about the DNC.
4. If Obama was so weak, why’d he throw out more people? If Trump’s so strong, why’s he so whiny?
@Matt Andersson. He’s also done more than previous Presidents to make the problem more emotion for everyone, less amenable to legislative compromise and more reminiscent of our own previous episodes of racial bias (with American Indians, with American-Japanese, with newly freed Blacks after the CW). It is also reminiscent of WWII roundups in Europe and the incarceration of Jews, gays, physically handicapped and other “unacceptables.”
Three quarters of the revulsion people feel with Trump personally is of his own making and it is intentional. He lives for tumult and discomforting others because he believes it makes him more powerful, provides him with room to maneuver, and an excuse if he fails! I cannot think of a single idea he has tried to implement that has not stirred up a hornets nest of emotion in others. He tramples on everyone, friend and foe, with equal abandon. He has an entire party in the Senate that enables his turmoil because they don’t work for the citizens anymore. They work for America’s businesses who fund their re-elections. This episode is “no skin off their noses.”
No one is defending “illegal immigrants,” but we have yet to hear a reasoned definition or approach from this WH. If Trump supporters actually listened they would hear objections to inhumane treatment and intentionally convoluted handling of applications of all kinds. But they are also too emotional to listen. Like I said: he lives to create chaos.
This editorial cites the once believed statistic that 10-12mm people are living here illegally. Yet even the Times published an article covering the Yale-MIT study that put the number close to 22mm people. Yes, 22 million people in this country illegally.
That is totally unacceptable. I see why the NYT would prefer to cite the 12mm number (and then "show" that we've gone down to 10mm), but it no longer seems believable or even relevant.
For whether the number is 22, 12 or 10, it's all ridiculous. All three of those numbers are unacceptable. There should not be a separate and back-door way to live in this country. Everyone needs to come through the appropriate legal channels. Asylum is not a back-door program for legal entry into the US, though it's being used as one by hundreds of thousands of people right now. It needs to be reformed ASAP, though I am not hopeful.
I am not for the inhumane treatment of desperate people. It's also unacceptable. But our borders and immigration rules needs to be enforced. Unfortunately, I am stuck agreeing with Trump that a crucial piece of this puzzle is strong deterrence-- showing people that they won't be able to stay here no matter how they step over the border. If we need to deport thousands of illegals to stop this insanity then I am afraid I agree. As a Democrat, I cannot support DACA without a component that stops the flow of millions of people into the US illegally. We will only be in the exact same position 20 years from now.
14
@Matt
The only way to get more people to immigrate legally is to provide real opportunities for them to do so. Family sponsorship can take up to 20 years--not an option for someone whose life, or whose child's life--is in peril now.
It would also help if we did less to exacerbate the violence in Central America. Repatriating DACA and TPS participants, or those immigrants who have been here for many years, will make matters worse. These people will go back with a target on their back because of the assumption that anyone with any contacts in the US has financial resources that can be extorted--with violence most likely.
This sentence describes the problem with a lot of our political discussion, including but not limited to immigration:
"Despite the breadth of the political center, leaders of the two parties find themselves pushed to ever greater extremes..."
We discuss things as if there is nothing between the Koch Brothers and Soviet-style communism, between rounding up 10 million immigrants or opening the border and letting everyone in.
Most Americans are more comfortable in the center, but the fringes seem to get the bulk of attention.
Perhaps this is because of our winner-take-all, two party system. There is no coalition-forming mechanism for minority points of view, so they must influence the mainstream or be ignored, unlike in other parts of the world where they can glean a couple of seats and bargain their legislative votes to get some of what they want.
Then there our enemies, who see this weakness and exploit it to drive the discussion to unrealistic extremes.
There is no painless way to manage the border, but it could be done in way that is less cruel to the people who are waiting for their hearings. We could start by building more facilities; the Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA could do it quickly, and the immigrants could wait for their hearings in relative comfort, with the option to leave if they become impatient or uncomfortable. But apparently extremists on both sides like the situation to remain untenable until they get their way.
I'm sure the Russians approve.
2
The article helpfully recounts the recent history of immigration enforcement, but then takes a rank partisan turn by blaming President Trump and Republicans for the current mess. Let’s look at the history again.
After Democrats captured both houses of Congress in 2007, President Bush delivered an historic speech calling for immigration reform and stating he was open to an amnesty for long-term residents. What did Democrats do in response? Nothing.
After Barack Obama was elected and Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and, for 8 months, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, what did they do? Again, nothing.
The fact is that there is no consensus in either party on the fundamental issues of immigration policy - and the party leaders know it. Trump had an opportunity to meld a cross-party consensus around a more simple and enforceable policy that supported American workers, but blew it by insisting on the unnecessary border wall. We are now at a point where partisan hatred is driving the debate. If Trump’s failures cause the pendulum to swing toward a radically more lenient system, the future backlash could be more ugly than that of 2016.
6
@Robert Claude
Actually, Democrats held a veto-proof majority for a relatively short period of time in 2009-10 (a period that began with Arlen Spector's defection and ended with Scott Brown's election), a period during which they were primarily focused on health care and restarting the American economy.
5
I Was A Undocumented Immigrant In Canada From 1984 To 1994. And I Received Health Care Including An Abortion At 31 Years Of Age At "Henry Morgentaler" Clinic In 1985 In Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Even though I Applied For Citizenship There Prior After My Dad Passed Away. In Order To Stay With My Mom And Family There. I Was Given An Option To Return On My Own. Now, I'm Thinking About What Now Senator Mitt Romney Said About Immigration When President Barack Obama Was President. Regarding Self-Deportation. When I Tried To Obtain A Visa In Detroit After Returning Back To Michigan In 1994. It Would Have Cost Me About $700.00 To Begin With In Order To Cross Back Over To Canada. My Dad Served In U.S. Military In Army From 1941 To 1945 During WWII. My Mom Lived In London, England During Entire WWII Working There At 19 Years Of Age From Her Homeland In Dublin, Ireland. Never Became a U.S. Citizen After Marrying My Dad In Detroit In 1952 Both Retired To Canada In 1975. And Dad Was Born In Canada In 1915. Mom In Dublin, Ireland In 1920. Mom Became A Canadian Citizen. Dad Had To Reapply For Canadian Citizenship. Dad And His Parents And Siblings Moved From Canada To Detroit When Dad Was Around 16 Years Of Age. My Older Half-Brother And Younger Sister Both Were Born In Detroit As I Was Born In 1954. We Were A Middle Class Family. But It Was Difficult To Stay In Detroit After The 1967 Riots. Where Is The Fairness In All Of This?
I have a problem with calling the illegal aliens " immigrants".
In my understanding, to be an immigrant one has to go through an official process of applying for a permanent immigrant status, to receive a green card, identifying you as a permanent immigrant.
Those who bypass the process, and sneak in or overstay their visitor's visa, are here illegally and should be rightfully and legally,
subject to deportation, per U.S. laws. There should be no argument there. Asylum seekers too should have to follow the process and not just barge in across borders.
The case of dreamers, who were brought here illegally by their illegal parents, through no fault of their own, is different. These young people grew up here and identify themselves as Americans. The U.S. government should not punish them, and make an effort to come up with a pathway for citizenship for the dreamers.
10
@Shailendra Vaidya
Asylum seekers ARE "following the process." Most are from countries where both random and targeted violence is ubiquitous. The U.S. should "follow the process" and allow them a fair hearing.
1
Lots of bad thinking reflected in these comments. An unhappiness with the Constitution of the United States, for example, and its dictates concerning representation for all people living in the U.S.A. The solution to this unhappiness would be an amendment to the Constitution or an individual taking up citizenship elsewhere at a personal level.
Another item is claiming that those seeking asylum are entering the national territory illegally; they are not. They are seeking asylum. A further, related item, is declaring these asylum seekers frauds. The courts make that determination not those who vent on the comments page of the NYT.
Another concern of many is extending basic healthcare to those detained by the U.S. government. When a government detains an individual, whether as a prisoner of war or a criminal or an illegal immigrant, it is responsible to take reasonable care of the being in its custody. Everyone should be happy about that since the day may come when one finds oneself jailed for some reason or other, even unjustly.
Finally, there is so much bitterness. There are people knocking at the gates of the land guarded by Lady Liberty because they are facing death and tyranny at home, a tyranny that the U.S.A. may have had a hand in creating and enabling. Right wing death squads which were once an arm of a misguided foreign policy may have become todays criminal cartels. There is no reason to treat people cruelly, to deny them Constitutionally-afforded protections.
17
@Soquelly
Give us a break. They are not seeking true asylum - they are gaming weak asylum laws with a wink-wink from Democrats. True asylum was designed to protect persons persecuted by their governments for political reasons, not because they want a better job. We all know this.
Thanks for posting - from France of all places. Remind us what unfettered migration has done to your country.
5
@Soquelly--Funny how it takes a foreigner to so succinctly and correctly sum up the ignorance and callousness of the American attitude to immigration. Thank you for your spot-on comment. Your final sentence: "There is no reason to treat people cruelly, to deny them Constitutionally-afforded protections," sums up the crux of the issue so plainly and beautifully. If only Americans could see the wisdom in your statement. If only our dotard president could, as well.
@XLER
That's just what Trump says. It is not true. You should want to make sure that due process is afforded to everyone, for your own sake and that of your country.
Most of the E.U. has open borders, and that is much better than before, and there haven't been any wars recently between member states. Without immigration, Europe would be at a loss for labor and not paying pensions. You should never listen to Donald Trump, he has made a career of lying. It is the only thing that he is a stable genius at.
The law is the law. It needs to be enforced humanely. Period.
IMHO, some of the so-called progressives do not respect any law but are only interested in achieving their goals by any means necessary, even if that means flaunting our nation's laws. They believe in a nation without borders, no border enforcement of any kind.
Progressives such as Bernie, AOC and others should not be called liberals but if I understand correctly they are democratic socialists bent on revolution.
Public media points out "progressives" are angry at Speaker Pelosi and other liberal/moderate Dems.
Truth be told the overwhelming majority of Dem are furious with these progressives who do not share the values or support the policies of the Democratic Party. The "progressives" attempt to takeover the Dems will be opposed "tooth & nail" by the majority of the Dems.
The overwhelming majority of Dems and the majority of all Americans oppose progressive/socialist policies of open borders, anti-corporate hate, higher taxes for all, millions of employees forced to give up their health insurance in Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, a government job for all the unemployed, etc.
In other words the majority of Dems & Americans bitterly oppose a massive government expansion and government intrusion into the lives of individuals.
Progressive/socialist will never win but they would drive the Democratic Party off al cliff into political irrelevance for a generation.
11
@Mike
Progressive/democratic socialist policies do not include open borders! simply a more humane treatment of those crossing the border illegally and asylum seekers.
Senator Bernie Sanders has emphasized how US actions from NAFTA to US using military and covert actions to destabilize much of Central America has helped create the unlivable conditions, forcing people to seek asylum in the US.
Sanders emphasizes putting more resources into humane treatment and the asylum system, while also working with other countries to insure safe lives with better opportunity in the countries from which people are fleeing.
You may be surprised to find out that a majority of Democrats support those progressive/democratic socialist policies, especially those looking forward to a viable future.
3
@Lucy Cooke Respectfully, Bernie and the "progressives" are associated with a group called the "Justice Democrats" If you go to their platform you will see that one of the planks in their platform is: To abolish the US Customs Immigration and Enforcement(ICE) agency.
Now, let me pose this to you: If we abolish the agency which enforces the law on immigration & customs, would there not be any borders security? Isn't this tantamount to abolishing borders? Would you replace it with another border security agency? Why not improve our border security and reform the immigration law for humane treatment of all immigrants rather than get rid of border security? Why abolish ICE and not improve it? Doesn't every nation have the right and duty to secure our borders, humanely, of course?
Finally, we have a real disagreement about the political support of Bernie and the other folks on the left.
Honestly and with no insult, I believe that you and others have been carried away by the excitement and your strong belief in the virtue of your ideas and thus have deluded yourselves into believing that you have a majority of support among Dems and all Americans.
You would drive the Dems to an overwhelming defeat. Be careful what you wish for. Cordially.m
2
And you think massive database searches and raids on cities aren’t intrusive, or an expansion of Big Government. As well as that the corporations that flooded the country with guns and opioids, or jacked up drug prices past all reason, or crashed our economy and then jad to be bailed out, are our bestest buddy.
Ooookkkaayyyy.....
We've made too much of Trump's Twitter announcements about ICE's removal actions. If I understood the Times articles correctly, the target is Central American families who crossed the border within the last year - October 2018 was referenced in one article, and have had asylum claims denied and received deportation orders. The families haven't left. (Some did not appear in court and may not have received their court notice.)
The outcries from prominent Democrats like Governor Newsom have served Trump's purpose. The families ICE is seeking are not people with long ties to the US. It's hard to imagine they have American citizen children, given the short time period. The opposition from Democrats makes it appear that the party would let all who come stay - the open borders claim Trump seeks to pin on them.
7
Enforcement of which other federal law is so dependent upon the whims of the president? When did it become okay for the president, of whichever party, to have such sway that they can thwart the laws duly enacted by the legislative branch for political gain, either by essentially ignoring that law or using it as a cudgel?
If a law is properly on the books, then it should be enforced. Period. Or eliminated by the elected legislature (Congress) not via an Executive Order. We should not wait for a four year revision with a "pen and a phone" or an angry Tweet to determine what the latest version of immigration enforcement is to be. That is not the role the presidency should play, all part of the ever abusive growth of that office.
15
I believe one solution that is not discussed is reducing the time and expense of legal migration to the US. This article discusses relative numbers among current and previous presidents and doesn't deal with solutions.
4
Real simple: enforce the law an fine/incarcerate the EMPLOYERS who employ exploited, undocumented workers in the first place.
12
President Donald Trump No Longer Will Seek To Add To 2020 Census The Question "Are You Or Are You Not A United States Citizen?" Instead He Is Asking Federal Government Agencies To Report To The U.S. Department Of Commerce Who Is And Who Isn't A United States Citizen. My Take On His Goal Is To Make One Government Agency, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security, In Control Of All Other Government Agencies In Not Just Immigration But In Law Enforcement.
1
I believe that inasmuch a Trump has no idea how to handle with this issue so he uses kids who come over the border and and he locks them up and does nothing for them. We need to watch our borders, but children should not be separated from their parents.
11
Immigration - legal and illegal - is here to stay. Global events like wars, famine, warming will continue to feed the forces of human migration across the world. Human migration is a global business.
How we deal with it is complex and profoundly shakes nation states and their communities because mores and laws are pulling in opposite directions.
That is why we grapple - both parties - with this issue. Immigration must be managed by arrival (fewer should depart their home nation) and by removal based on capacity.
What is wrong with Trump's policy across the board is the fact that first of all it is just a show.
Second it orders ICE to act without balancing the capacity - judges, centers, laws.
Third it does not prioritize wasting the capacity on unlawful people that pose no danger or even are beneficial and
fourth it ignores the global drivers of migration like global warming while it gutted the state department which was in the past at the forefront in the critical nations to manage the business of aid and influence in the immigrant nations.
8
Donald Trump should be given credit for doing something that past presidents have been reluctant to do, which is to force Congress’ is hand solving the immigration problem once and for all. It is Congress through its demagoguery and willingness to look the other way in enforcing our immigration laws who have put our boarder enforcement agencies in the current impossible position of trying to protect our borders while AOC and the Democratic Party are the guiltiest in perpetuating the problem with their political grandstanding and the lying.
If the President is successful in forcing Congress to reform our immigration laws he will go down as the commander and chief who was able to accomplish something no other president has ever been able to and the American people will love him for it. So will immigrants around the world who are trying to do the right thing by coming to this great country legally.
10
@JAC So far, over two years into Trump's rein of terror, he has not cajoled Congress into any legislation that reforms immigration statutes. And for those first two years of Trump the GOP held the majority in both legislative chambers.
So, as far as that wishful thinking that Trump will be loved and he will be the great fixer of immigration, keep your hopes up. The rest of us know the reality.
16
Dan
The reality is that Republicans are responsible also but not nearly to the extent that the Democrats are. Donald Trump will end up winning this in the end especially if he is reelected, and he probably will be.
2
@JAC
Please.
There are methods to get Congress to act that don’t require cruel and inhumane treatment of innocent children.
There was a bipartisan comprehensive solution in Congress and McConnell would blocked it to spite Obama.
Finally, a somewhat balanced article in the NYT on illegal immigration. How about advocating for those who employ undocumented workers to face penalties/fines/jail time too? That should fast track a reasonable, bipartisan solution through Congress.
22
@ns Take a look back in recent history about punishing the employers. Tried and failed again and again.
Even the Trump organization had, and may still have, undocumented workers.
3
So it appears that the hateful rhetoric of Trump is what has really is the difference between Bush, Clinton and Obama's Immigration policies. What I mean by that, is Bush, Clinton and Obama did not use drama or inhumane treatment of Immigrants a campaign issue, therefore most citizens in the U.S. left it up to the Government to have what appears to be a sensible removal or returned policy.
This should not be a major campaign issue but it has come to that because of Trump's maniacal approach and inhumane conditions at the detention centers.
Hence both members of the House and the Republicans need to seriously reform our Immigration policies, not put bandaids on the problem, which seems to be the Modus Operandi in the last few years.
Stop kicking the can down the road, as they have been known to do with our budget. Stop spending time on getting rid of the ACA, improve it or go the Medicare-for-all route. Stop fooling around with our Voting Rights, our Right to Choose, and Gerrymandering Voting Districts. Do what most voters want, not what your donors want.
Bring back humane treatment of the Immigrants being held in our Detention Centers, stop outsourcing the Detention Centers to private companies and Make DACA a law.
18
Removals, deportations, what ever you want to call it has been as gamed by successive admins as what the asylum seekers are doing at the border now. The truth is, we have selectively applied the rules to make a political point or satisfy cheap labor demands forever. Truth is, you can only under very specific conditions justify importing poverty to fix an economic situation. Ex the "cheap" fruit picker has two kids who are now citizens and they get free public education, healthcare, and food stamps, courtesy of the taxpayer who thinks he's getting a good deal by saving 10cents on tomatoes. The dishonesty at all levels and sides on this subject are breath taking. We should only be hiring people who are here legally and they should be paid decent wages with benefits. Our immigration "system" should take into account the environment and the longterm effects of adding people to a country that by any measure is over populated now and take into account that automation is the future and unskilled, uneducated immigrants are unlikely to ever be a net positive. We should also be willing to help these countries deal with their problems at home so that they don't see coming here as their only option to grinding poverty and over population there. Complex, expensive and the need for clear discussions based on the facts and the numbers. Of coarse, it's much easier to just get emotional.
6
Give the large population of people awaiting deportation, it might be an ideal time for House Democrats to begin debating humanitarian deportation policy.
The President's announced intention to make sudden raids clearly cannot be humanely enforced as a one-size-fits-all policy. People who are destitute, infirm, who are the sole support of American citizen relatives, families with divided citizenship, etc. should not be simply be whisked away as if they were lone individuals whose status does not have a significant impact on others in their household or family.
Since Congress is given the power by the Constitution to set naturalization rules for the USA, some classes of deportees should be accorded a different status that acknowledges their potential candidacy for permanent or temporary resident status pending negotiations with their source country.
This is a complicated issue that requires hard work and attention to detail. It should be addressed separately from overall immigration reform, and might even provide a spur to the type of necessary immigration reform that currently appears politically impossible.
Justice is very much different than abusing letter of the law as part of a candidates political campaign.
Justice is not targeting Mexicans as part of a candidate's election campaign.
I wonder how the country would react if Trump's campaign was built upon deporting, and separating families of any Polish immigrants (for example) who've overstayed their visa?
3
@Martin. Everything should be color/race blind. The fact that most people in the country illegally are from south of the border is an inconvenient fact, but a fact non the less. If we shared a border with Nigeria or China or Bulgaria I suspect that would determine who was here in the greatest numbers. It's not racism if your efforts are directed at where the greatest numbers are.
1
Americans need to come to terms with the fact that undocumented migrants subsidize their way of life. They provide cheap labor in meat and poultry processing plants and in the tomato fields and orange groves of Florida. They do piecemeal work in small garment operations and wash dishes in restaurants. Do most citizens know that firms actually advertise for workers in Guatemala? “Illegality” has long been a way to ensure a cadre of inexpensive laborers who are afraid to protest their working conditions. “Illegality” is not about excluding migrants; it is about including them in vulnerable and exploitable ways.
26
@sj
We have convinced ourselves for generations now that cheap immigrant labor subsidizes our way of life. In actuality, the cost of educating their often large families, providing housing as they compete for inexpensive housing with American poor, and the cost of infrastructure necessitated by the added population vastly out weighs the savings on cheap labor.
At the same time, American fertility rates have dropped to levels which are unsustainable for the nation. My point is that we need to have HONEST discussions of pros and cons. This article belies the belief that our current President is deporting vastly higher numbers of illegal aliens.
9
@Tim. Good points Tim. I have to disagree on birth rate however. A lower birth rate is in reality the only sustainable way forward in an over populated world that is in climate/environmental crises. The U.S. was arguably at its most prosperous at ~1/2 the population we have now. We cannot continue to add people for ever just to continue the failed Ponzi scheme that we call our economy. We are 5% of the worlds people using 25% of its resources. This is unsustainable for us and the planet as is the 100 million extra people we add every 14 mos to the earth. Adjusting to falling populations will be challenging but it's the only thing that will give us and the other species we share the earth with any chance of longterm survival. This new world of the last 50 years requires new ways of thinking.
5
@Tim
Can you provide some statistical basis for your assertions?
I think what has changed in the Trump administration is not the reality of our immigration laws. They haven't changed much in the last 30 years. What's different here is that the Donald Trump is using deportations as a campaign stunt. While in the past these deportations happened, no on was especially happy about them and no one bragged about deporting people. Donald Trump is and when I say "Donald Trump" I mean the man personally. There may be other people in his campaign telling him that this is good for his re-election, but by and large this is a reflection of Donald Trump, not America.
25
There is concept already in play that could greatly alleviate the current humanitarian crisis facing immigrants seeking refuge along our Southern border. It’s called “sanctuary cities.,” but with one major twist. Instead of the cities being located here, they should be in Central America. The United States has already sent troops to Honduras to police the border, but they should be reallocated to protect a designated city for all Hondurans wishing sanctuary from violence while they complete applications for asylum without having to pay coyotes to transport them hundreds of miles to our border. Such a smart immigration policy would end the border crisis, save lives, secure the border without the need for a wall, and rationalize the immigration/asylum process. Both the U.S. and Mexico could pay for it with the funds now being wasted in the current catastrophe at the border.
5
@Paul Wortman
I think you meant to say that Mexico has sent members of its newly-created National Guard to its southern border with Guatemala.
The U.N. could create a sanctuary in Guatemala where Central Americans could go to the to explain their situations. U.N. representatives who were well versed in what criteria different countries require to offer asylum would listen to their stories, and then tell them which countries might offer them asylum.
Most countries (including ours) offer the opportunity to apply for asylum based on the criteria of the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention - for those fleeing persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, politics, or membership in a particular social group.
Mexico and some other Latin American countries have lowered the criteria for asylum with their Cartagena Declaration. Mexico, in particular, has said it will offer asylum to those who are fleeing poverty, food insecurity, and/or general violence.
Here in the U.S., immigration judges have been finding that only 10 - 15% of those requesting asylum from Central America qualify for it under the U.N. Refugee Convention, and are issuing deportation orders for the rest. If the latter had been able to apply at a U.N. sanctuary closer to their homes, they would not have had to come all the way here.
They would also have been informed if they would meet the looser criteria for asylum in Mexico or another Latin American country.
@Paul Wortman--Just so long as those brown people don't come here, eh? We don't have a border crisis, we have a law breaking presidential/Constitutional crisis. Let the asylum seekers in and process them quickly, as required by LAW. Better the US should fix the horrendous problems it created in those countries. Take some responsibility for its crimes against humanity and other sovereign governments, for a big change of pace.
1
These statistics are helpful to a discussion about immigration reform they don't really point toward what that reform should be.
And that's the problem with both parties. Both use immigration as a hot button issue but neither have a comprehensive reform strategy.
The unstated fact is that we have had migrant flow across the Mexican border for over a hundred years. That flow has been influenced by Latin American economic conditions but also the labor needs in the US.
During WWI and WWII we had a shortage of farm workers and Mexicans filed that need. But after each war we tightened border access.
Until 1965 we had a predictable flow of Mexican workers mostly in agriculture and most returned after the growing season. The 1965 Immigration Act made it much harder to return and this began the process of people arriving, working and staying, most without papers.
Today's US labor needs are different as are the projections for the future and we need new laws that recognize those needs and regulate them in a sensable way.
Neither party or any of the candidates are offering that discussion. So why not have it in the pages of the NYTimes or on the airwaves?
There are numerous experts who have studied this problem and have fashioned clear options for a new system that includes border security, due process and a means to regulate the flow of labor that our country needs.
Our politicians will not offer this conversation so let the people join the debate and tell them what we want.
11
@Drspock
If only they actually listened to the people..
1
As with everything else the Trump administration does, they have executed immigration policy with sloppiness, without thinking it through, using it to their advantage rather than trying to determine a just and workable strategy. It is just another example of the incompetence of this administration. Immigration policy along with so many other important issues will flounder in an aimless way, and be used as a political tool as long as Trump is president.
10
@Elaine I agree that Mr. Trump has not been consistent in his policy on illegals. I want him to be far more aggressive in removing people who don't have permission to be here. I don't care if they are Irish, Central American, Chinese , African or Dreamers.
1
Eliminating the draw of high paying (relatively) jobs and a welcoming safety net is the one thing we won't do. Half of job applicants today are qualified via E-verify. E-verify is free, fast, and has had all the kinks worked out of it. E-verify works. Yet we don't require all job holders to have been e-verified because everyone likes their cheap labor, everyone except those Americans who are stuck with depressed wages or loss of jobs.
14
@somsai. California has made it difficult for employers to use everify. The only way anything is going to get done is everything has to be federal. Uniform rules regarding sanctuary cities, compliance with ice drivers license, free healthcare and on and on.
4
The stock market is currently at its highest level ever, and unemployment is currently at its lowest level ever. These are compelling optics regardless of the reality of life in 2019 for most Americans. Given that no Democratic candidate has anything resembling a workable/realistic immigration plan it seems reasonable to assume that Trump - despite the chaos of his presidency - will simply run in 2020 on the economy and immigration, and likely win.
28
@MH I believe the stock market has to be a propped-up house of cards. I agree, if the market and economy stay up we will never get rid of these despots.
5
@MH
What percentage of the residents of WV, Kentucky, Georgia, et al do you suppose have stock portfolios? What percentage make more than the minimum wage? How many people have more than one job?
8
@RPH. Of coarse it is. Every admin pulls all the levers to juice the economy before elections. Nobody gets reelected with high gas prices and high unemployment. Whether it's immigration or the economy. We live in a country where the next quarter is all that counts. It's also why we don't make choices for the long term and pretty much everything is getting worse.
9
Earlier this year Trump suggested a three year extension of DACA and funding for the wall as an opening bid for a compromise with the Democrats, but Pelosi wanted it all and refused to negotiate. Obviously the Dems were putting political considerations over fixing the problem or they would have been at least willing to talk. In the face of their inaction their next tactic was to deny that there was a border crisis at all. It was just a “manufactured crisis,” they insisted. The signal they were sending was that you could illegally cross the border and get away with it because nobody in Congress could agree. The floodgates were open. No longer able to deny there was a crisis the Dems used the misery of the immigrants in the overcrowded detention centers as a bludgeon to attack Trump’s “cruel policies” which supposedly were the cause of the problem and not their own intransigence. As always Trump is the villain even though as the graphs in this editorial prove, Obama’s policies were just as Draconian as his. So typical of him, he wasn’t interested in doing the right thing but only what was politically expedient. He didn’t want to look weak on immigration so hundreds of thousands of immigrants were removed by him, but a different president who actually believes in what he is doing is now branded as “cruel” by the hypocritical Democrats. Unless the Democrats are willing to admit their own part in this mess and stop politicizing it, nothing will ever get done.
29
@Edward, the wall is not going to happen. trump makes promises, then fails to perform, and you folks dutifully blame the Democrats.
When there are more immigrants awaiting processing than there were in other years, why is that anything other than an administrative issue? Increase the number of asylum judges/processing, to get it done in a timely manner. America's system of processing immigrants is a legal one, not a prison system, at least until now. When lots of people go to the grocery store at one time, say July 3rd, or the day before Thanksgiving, does the store just panic, lock it's doors and call the police because people want in? They open more checkout lines to be efficient! By your logic, they'd just round up all the food-seekers and hold them in pens outside in the hot parking lot until they've suffered enough not to shop there. Don't throw the 'illegals' at me either; these people are waiting simply for processing.
It's amazing how supposedly adult citizens like Edward insist only Democrats can make mistakes. It's not worth trying to rebut their justifications. They believe, wide-eyed, when trump sternly commands that THIS asylum situation is TOTALLY different, and we just can't now. trump's motto: American't!
17
@deb. When masses of people go to the grocery store and simply walk in and expect skip the line at the registerand get free groceries it's a whole different situation. The world and this country are completely different than when our immigration and asylum laws were put in place. We are facing unprecedented waves of people with virtually no end in sight. Simply hating trump and calling anyone who isn't in favor of this a xenophobic uninformed racist isn't going to cut it anymore. The democratic response to just offer more enticements to illegal entry and decriminalizing it is insane and will give us four more years of trump.
3
@Al, that's not what's happening, Al. The detained have not been allowed to apply. They are NOT skipping the line. This IS the line. Your comment contains a lot of misinformation, but as I said, my experience says those who hate asylum seekers now, with no context from history, don't care about good faith arguments. Prove me wrong; why are the people, children separated from them, being held in detention before they even are allowed to apply for LEGAL asylum? Why won't we simply process the increased traffic as we've always done? Punishment for coming to America, via the cruelest methods, has never, until the last 2.5 years, been America's way.My grocery store analogy stands; These people were not caught trying to sneak or steal. They are imprisoned indefinitely against American immigration policy. Otherwise, how did Ellis Island deal with entire shiploads, caravans even! of desperate refugees in WWI? WWII? After Vietnam? During the slaughter in Serbia/Croatia? Asylum is not illegal entry.
Many of the temporary young people and people in their twenties, thirties and older living in Pittsburgh are here mainly to attend one of the more than a few universities here. Many are graduate students, some are couples with young children. It sometimes seems that most want to return to their countries or to somewhere else upon graduation.
I only say this because this is the type of community where I live. Without exception, they are pleasant and mainly speak excellent English. There is almost no group that is predominant as to country of origin that I notice.
But in the world where Trump has focused his attention, and especially along our southern border, he has focused his policy of deterrence and deportation on exclusively people of color, other than white, which can be a color a color that rarely occurs in human beings.
And the particularly heinous part of this policy of segregating people from blacklisted countries is the punitive and terrorist manner in which people are quartered as if in cattle cars to be shipped to a death chamber. In fact children, some 4 months old have been torn from a parent or relative and shipped without identification to places that are not recorded. Thousands are among us whose former lives have been ended this way. The editorial includes other examples of immigrants who are legally in the United States, but whose legal statuses are disregarded by ICE storm troopers.
14
@Frank Correnti. You may have noticed, but the people at the southern border are, surprise!, brown people from Central America. One must assume that's because that's who we share a border with. I'm not sure it's trumps racism that caused the 100,000 per month to show up there. When a 100,000 Norwegians start rowing boats over we'll have to deal with them. But in the mean time the reality is what it is.
1
Reading past all the obvious polarization of the opinion and using some common sense one who has been paying attention knows this has been an long time problem and is not the fault of the current president. This is the do nothing congress who make $175K for working about two and a half days a week. They have kicked the can for years and still do as the people bicker back and forth and of course accuse the president. So it’s good politics for the out party. If the people who have suddenly woke up to this problem think by being the loudest they will change anything I got news for you. If you don’t like the laws change them until then follow them and enforce them. If an illegal has been ordered to leave then help them out. We all know the boarder is broken no one should be allowed in without due process that’s just good government and no one should be keep out for imagined characterization.
14
@J Clark, "one who has been paying attention". That's probably true, but only FOX is claiming that the current president, unlike anyone ever, is all-knowing, speaks only truth, and is not bound by silly American norms like others. Anything he says or does is the fault only of Democrats. If that's what you call paying attention, well, yeah.
There is never an excuse for abusing children. There is NEVER anyone to blame for prison conditions except the ones holding the keys.
2
I was considering supporting Warren but when I read this week that she plans to support open borders I threw her totally out the window. What don't these people understand? The majority of Americans are against unfettered immigration. Trump actually gets this right and he will likely be reelected on the immigration issue alone.
55
@Sarah99 I don't know where you got this nonsense, but it is totally false. Here's one link to a summary of Warren's proposals on immigration reform. https://www.vox.com/2019/7/12/20690200/elizabeth-warren-immigration-proposal-2020
2
@Sarah99
I can't find a single piece of evidence that Warren (or any other politician for that matter) supports open borders. What did you read that gave you that impression? The majority of American's are against unfettered immigration? Find me one person that is for unfettered immigration. This is a right-wing canard.
2
Either we are a country governed by law or not.
26
Law is invariably subject to interpretation.
1
As the statistics here display and the arguments made by the Editorial Board amplify; Trump has been significantly more humane in his actual handling of immigrants than President Obama. Trumps rhetoric and the anti-Trump counter rhetoric are significantly uglier then the rhetoric under Obama - but the fact remains the actual human cost are much lower under Trump than Obama. Apparently, not low enough for the Editorial board.
21
@Mkm
What article did you read? "The fact remains the actual human cost are much lower under Trump than Obama" seriously?
With all of the back and forth, I still just don't understand how children can be kept in a defacto cage, vulnerable to sickness and disease. God help us; this is not my USA.
25
@Connie. Given the numbers and the attractiveness of coming here, families should be kept together and sent home. When our asylum laws were put in place they were never envisioned to cope with large portions of entire countries showing up at the border with their kids.
4
@Connie Maybe you should go down to the border yourself and verify if some of these claims that the left is making about border conditions are true. Do you want to pay for a 5 star resort Ritz Carlton Hotel? And I'm curious, did you have the same concern about border conditions under Obama?
3
We need to control our borders and enforce our current immigration laws. However, enforcement needs to allow for decent and humane treatment, provide for prompt processing of applications, and for prompt and humane deportation of those who do not qualify for asylum.
Common sense also dictates that we should provide the necessary aid to alleviate the conditions that cause the citizens of Central American countries to flee.
27
@LWK
I agree. The majority of people, including Democrats, want secure borders. But we also believe in the humane treatment of all people. Many commenters are holding Trump innocent of blame for this mess, but I do not. In my view, three conditions in their home countries are leading to so many migrants appearing at our borders. One is climate change that has contributed to draughts and decimated crops so that people cannot earn a living. A second is corrupt administrations that tolerate gang violence and run their countries for their own financial benefit, putting their in danger and depriving them of economic opportunity.
The third reason has been solely controlled by Trump. He has cut off all economic aid to the Central American countries. That aid mostly went to nonprofit organizations that trained workers and helped create new jobs. When such aid disappeared, many migrants had no work and no way to feed their families—and violent gangs threatening them. Restoring and even increasing economic aid would be of far greater benefit for the crisis at the border instead of spending far more taxpayer dollars on for-profit private prisons that are providing substandard housing and food at five-star hotel prices—as much as $780 per person per night to sleep on concrete with no showers, decent food, or even a toothbrush. And the depravity of ripping babies, even nursing infants, from their mothers is solely Trump’s policy. He would rather hurt innocents than resolve the crisis.
11
The number one reason people are fleeing these countries is violence against innocent people by gangs and corrupt governments, all financed by the drug traffic to the US. If US citizen stop consuming illegal drugs, the conditions in these countries will change for the good and very quickly. There is a human cost to drug addiction, both for US citizens and for the citizens of these countries. Providing aid to these countries only exacerbate the problem because the aid ends up in the hands of corrupt government officials.
There is a much better way to handle the influx of migrants at the border. The federal government needs to build more facilities at the border to house immigrants and more border agents need to be employed. The borders are crossed every day by legal workers and those people need to cross the border in a timely matter. There are simply too many people to help without the proper resources. The US has the money to make this happen but the Trump administration simply chooses to keep people in cages. At the same time, the Trump administration must go back to the policy of helping governments in Central America deal with their problems. It would be great if those governments could help themselves but they clearly are not. Even policies that help on the local level are better than none. Finally, the current ICE raids in cities are pointless and are simply red meat for the GOP base.
16
The US should provide application forms that make clear what must be established to gain entry to the US in all its consulates.
2
@Steve Bolger Most of these asylum seekers present themselves at the border, not at US consulates. Perhaps part of the solution would be to expand consular services and locations.
1
All that is needed to justify the President's approach is the years and years of Inaction by Congress to fix the problems. The Inaction Continues so the Justification will continue as well.
12
@GregP There is no justification for inhumanity.
@GregP
The only legislation we need is putting teeth into eVerify. The day the first employer goes to jail is the day Romney’s self-deportation starts.
@Charlierf
Putting teeth into E-Verify is Congressional Action. They continue to refuse to ACT. So the President does instead. As he will do in 2020 when he is re-elected solely on this issue.
Trump's claim that he is concentrating on removing criminals should be compared to the number of his own appointees that have been convicted of crimes. Without facts it appears that the percentage of convicted criminals is greater in his administration than the percentage among the illegal immigrants.
56
@Hardeman It more than seems: criminals in the Trump administration FAR outweigh those among asylum seekers, bu multiple factors.
1
@Hardeman
When rational arguments fail: Change the subject.
Nice try.
The time has arrived, in this country, that the sane people act on what is being done to this country; and it’s not at the ballot box.
The election will be too late, if in fact we even have another election.
It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.
14
@Doremus Jessup
We will have another one. Question you mean to ask is: If Democrats ever win another Presidential election again? Its a good question because right now you lose in 2020 and if you keep going hard left again in 2024 and 2028.
1
@Doremus Jessup There is insanity on both sides. Please be more precise.
Donald Trump is not trying to enforce a coherent policy, he is just being wantonly cruel.
Trump is inciting fear with his talk of immigration raids planned nationwide this weekend.
Trump has been trying to intimidate non citizens from participating in the upcoming census with his grandstanding over the questionnaire.
Trump has separated families and made detention centers gratuitously harsh, then he just shrugs that it’s the price they pay. Conditions at the holding centers are so brutal that when Mike Pence - hardly the embodiment of compassion - recently visited one, he looked viscerally distressed and described the sight as tough stuff.
Oh, and note who still has not been able to get his fabled wall, let alone send Mexico any bills! Instead, Trump treats immigrants as subhuman and a cheap source of political gains.
137
You are mistaken. Trump is following the law, and no, I am not a bot or Republican. It took me 17 years to get my green card and I did not qualify for DACA because I entered the country legally. I lived every moment of those 17 years under the threat of deportation but never once considered living here illegally. DACA is only for youth who arrived "illegally". If you are going to be here illegally, then you have no rights. And before you defend your position, think about your children - you expect them to compete with the children of illegals in the near future for fewer and fewer jobs? Your social security and Medicare is threatened by illegal arrivals.
13
@NM
Please, just stop. Stop turning enforcement into "cruelty", "racism," "xenophobia", etc. It's an insult to every American for whom a core value is following the law.
Hatred of Trump is the real source of our current border crisis. Too many are willing to allow anything, including breaking laws, as long as Trump is negatively impacted. It's disgusting, quite frankly.
11
@NM
Yes NM, Donald Trump is a textbook extreme psychopath, irrationally immersed in his own glorification. Yet, tragically, even he is more sane on illegal immigration than our Democratic candidates.
Many 2020 voters do not know what a psychopath is, but they do know what “illegal” means.
9
The Obama Administration started counting border "turn aways" as "removals". This had never been done before. Clearly this inflated his numbers and made him look a lot tougher on deportation than he was, especially since his internal enforcement was so weak.
Then there is the concept of moral hazard. Obama's polices encouraged over 70,000 unaccompanied minors to flood our borders in one year alone.
25
@AACNY Amazing that no matter what particular Trump maladministration shortcoming is being discussed, it’s always either the fault of Obama or the Clintons.
Point to Obama’s policies all you like. The Republicans had two years where they controlled both houses of Congress. Rather than pass legislation that would have addressed the crisis that Trump now uses to rally his white supremacist base, the Republicans passed tax relief for the wealthy. It doesn’t take a genius to see where Republican priorities lie. But it requires breathtaking hypocrisy to pretend it’s anything other that Little Donnie showboating for the racists whose vote he requires in 2020.
2
First off, the article clearly separates removals from returns, and notes the priorities for different administrations. Obama simply prioritized stopping new inflows, and throwing out actual criminals. Disagree if you like, but stop distorting.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not
Second off: those kids showed up AFTER Obama left office, so what’s your theory? Secret messages printed on tortillas...”Okay, wait two years and then go for it?”
You may also wish to find out what the term “moral hazard,” means. Or more likely, you may not. But here’s a hint: it implies deliberate, rational, adult thought and action.
2
"Unlike his predecessors, President Trump — "
Mr. Trump uses the office of the presidency (and therefore the power of deporter in chief) to increase Mr. Trump's ratings and please those who wanted him to be president and deporter in chief. That is different from the President how happens to be Mr. Trump is using the office of the presidency to further the interests of the American people.
Mr. Trump uses the presidency for his own purposes, not for the nation's. That is clear with the falsehoods he uses to justify the decisions he makes. The other presidents mentioned did not put themselves and their ratings first and use the office to have more power. What Mr. Trump is doing is the definition of high crimes. He uses the office of the presidency as a man who has something to gain, not as a president who has nothing to gain but that which his nation, as a whole, does. The subtle difference between Trump, as Trump and Trump as the President of the United States, as seen through motives and behavior, is paramount.
20
We are well past the Joe Arpaio shaming of those incarcerated with pink clothes and bologna sandwiches to actual physical and psychological harm. This must end.
Studies of institutionalized children who were denied any modicum of comfort over 100 years ago documented both the depth and breadth of damage done to children in our care. Continuing child separation and effective torture of children deserves both international opprobrium and action at the United Nations and ultimately the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
Would we act this way if the children were Norwegians or if Barron Trump were among them?
If I am not for me, who will be?
If I am only for me, who am I?
If not now, when?
30
@Douglas McNeill
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"
1
The number of undocumented aliens in the U.S. is estimated to be between ten and eleven million; no one knows, a fact the administration likes to play upon rhetorically. The number of U.S. citizens living abroad is also a matter of speculation, but it is acknowledged to be many millions. The State Department estimated there are perhaps 9 million a few years ago. This is rather interesting, that the total population of people within the borders of the U.S. is roughly equivalent to the number of U.S. citizens, those absent represented by the undocumented. Places with high immigrant communities are likely same places the ex-pat community hails from by and large.
Is the government, the Trump administration, truly interested in knowing the number of U.S. citizens? And what plans do they have to discover the number of Americans living abroad? Should they be apportioned Congressional representation?
8
@Soquelly
Your data is cherry picked and outdated (ooops?). You took select cited numbers from Wikipedia during the Great Recession when numbers declined. The government agency estimates I’ve read recently have been in the 11 and 12 million ranges (2016/2017), while at least one non-partisan study from MIT estimates it to be over 22 million (2018). One study was as high as 29 million, but that’s a statistical outlier. All respectable studies acknowledge in fine print that estimates are based on statistical sample methodologies and no one can truly know for sure.
11
@Soquelly Most Ameticans who live abroad are there temporarily as workers who are also in those countries LEGALLY. I struggle to understand how so many people cannot get their heads wrapped around what that word means. Your comparison to US citizens overseas would be more accurate to compare to immigrants who are in the US legally.
Get me a number of US citizens living abroad illegally then we can have a conversation on the comparison that you should be making.
1
What the author fails to acknowledge is that the attempted illegal border crossings during the Trump Administration have far exceeded the 8 yrs Obama was in office. The system has been overwhelmed.
Detention Centers are just what the name implies not a night at the Waldorf ! What we desperately need is a workable immigration policy. With over a million people annually attempting to enter the US, we need a solution not just of walls and fences.
47
@George
And we will not have a bipartisan "workable immigration policy" until Trump is removed—
Because he has absolutely no credibility, trust, or integrity.
24
@srwdm The lack of genuine bipartisanship predates the Trump era. Political parties as hate machines goes way back to Lee Atwater’s day. The GOP set a new low when Mitch McConnell declared that his sole political goal was to limit the Obama presidency to a single term. He failed. Until there is a wakening in the country to stop electing oversized adolescents into Congress and vote in more moderate bipartisan members, the war will continue to the detriment of the nation.
6
The people in the detention centers are not entering illegally. They are presenting themselves for asylum in accordance with US law.
12
It is hard to argue against the Trump doctrine of strict enforcement of immigration laws. But fair enforcement cannot justify the cruel and inhumane treatment of children who are blameless victims of choices made by their parent(s). Trump seems to lack any sense of compassion or history when it comes to the treatment of innocent children.
18
@Milton Lewis
Trump lacks any sense of compassion or history, period.
@Milton Lewis
So is a child a literal "get out of jail free" card? Would parent status also preclude punishment for other crimes, even for citizens?
1
Why is it so hard to argue against that? People seem to like the idea of strict enforcement of laws until it happens to them. The total number of federal crimes is not even known, but it is in the thousands. Add to that local laws, a dash of strict enforcement (perhaps biased against people of color), and the USA winds up with the largest prison population in the world. I sure wonder how exactly this has benefited anyone. For both the criminal code and immigration code, strict enforcement often doesn’t make sense because the liabilities are so punitive as to cause more far more damage than the violation in the first place.
Until Democrats come up with a coherent plan to deal with this mess, Trump will fight the next election on this issue and this issue alone. That is what won him the last election and will win him the next one. I watched the democratic debate in horror, as everyone tried to out 'woke' each other. Every day of this administration I have watched as Trump and his yokels disassemble our democracy and I fear that if he gets four more years there will be nothing left to fight over. People who come here illegally, work here illegally and drive cars illegally are breaking the law. They need to be deported or returned. We need to adjust the immigration law to suit current needs and we need to go after employers who employ anyone without legal documentation and also those who abuse the H1B and other visas to hire cheap labor.
59
@thewriterstuff
Dems (and some Repubs- e.g. W) have put forth plans many times over the years. The other side won't work with them. Why? Because working on a comprehensive plan to overhaul our immigration system would require compromise.
What would that look like? Some long term undocumented people would become legal residents. Some employers would be punished. DACA would stand (or some may even become citizens). The Republican base won't accept any of these.
So, nothing is going to change as along as the Senate and/or the House is controlled by Republicans.
5
@JWL
One reason that Republicans won't accept these plans is because as we see with the current Democratic freakout over planned removals of a handful of people who have judicial deportation orders, there is not one deportation that Democrats won't fight tooth and nail. Not one. On twitter many Democrats are comparing this to the Holocaust and Fugitive Slave kidnappings. Not the signs of people with whom compromise is possible.
It's always reduce enforcement, legalize more illegal immigrants and maybe at some point in the future we'll discuss border/interior enforcement. Maybe.
6
@thewriterstuff Why do Democrats have to come up with a coherent plan or any plan at all? Trump presided over a Republican-held Congress for two full years and did nothing, not a single thing, zero, zip, zilch. He focused on trying to destroy healthcare and, when that failed (who knew it was so complicated...ummm, everybody but you Trump), his government worked on passing themselves a big fat tax cut. Yes, we do need immigration reform but it needs to be fair and humane and not based on skin color. We really need a true, visionary leader to gather together all those with a vested interest and figure out the best way forward but, tragically, all we have is a lying, cheating, incompetent narcissist who is using this human tragedy to get re-elected.
2
Somebody should explain just why putting real teeth into our old e-verify program would not work?
It could be written with amnesty to exempt registered undocs that have been here for say five years or more and are gainfully employed, without criminal history. It could focus on all new arrivals of undocs hencefwd.
In other words, the intention from now on would be to communicate to those considering illegal entry now, that there would be no work for you, so why try illegal entry.
They could still seek asylum, and go through the process. Then maybe our minimum wage would rise out of pure demand, without legally fixing it at $15 per hour or whatever.
Maybe that answered my question.
15
"Polling over many years has found broad consensus among Americans that mass deportations of all unauthorized immigrants isn’t the answer. Americans want some immigration restrictions and more border security but not the construction of a border wall."
Polling also showed that overwhelming majority is against allowing illegal immigrants to stay, that overwhelming majority is also for including the citizenship question in the census, even majority of Hispanics.
49
@areader
Most aren't aware of the status of the immigrants being deported. People don't realize they have reached the end of their remedies. What, exactly, is our government supposed to do with individuals who have received final deportation notices?
6
@areader So true. The small minority of the far left are being allowed to control the narrative of the Democratic party just as for a time the Tea Party did for the Republicans. Do not make the same mistake the Republicans did, the Dems need a broader platform that is not so focused on ideas that do not have a prayer of getting accepted as is. The middle voters are more afraid of the radical changes that the far left are proposing than they are of Trump. Think about it, what really changed for that middle group under Trump? Nothing that became a negative.
4
@DC
You need to search carefully all the Democratic candidates and vote for the ones that are middle not far left. There are several including Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Bennett, and Governor Jay Inslee. These men are more center than far left.
Exactly.
Presidents enforce the laws of the USA,
enacted by the U.S. Congress.
Those laws include the Immigration laws,
enacted by the Congress.
Sure,
for all laws, including the immigration laws,
Presidents have some discretion.
In 2016, Trump was elected President.
His signature campaign issue was immigration control.
He can -- and ought -- exercise his discretion
maximum immigration control.
Furthermore,
all countries have immigration laws,
and immigration control,
and deportation.
The USA is far more generous about immigration
than every other country except perhaps Canada and Australia.
But both Canada and Australia are far less densely populated than the USA.
Canada does not share a land border with Mexico
-- nor any other country except the USA --
and thus Canada has the luxury of the USA
as a 1500-mile buffer between itself and Mexico --
and thus Canada does not have to contend with swarms of illegal border crossers.
Australia does not have a land border with any country,
and can rely on the deep, deep seas as a natural barrier.
Furthermore, the immigrants that Canada and Australia do allow to come in are strictly screened to meet their own strict qualifications.
Further still,
although the Canadian and Australian legal systems share many characteristics with the USA's own legal system,
they are not plagued to nearly the same degree as the USA
by extravagantly expensive, cumbersome, time-consuming "process" that is easily abused by lawyers gaming the system.
74
@sam finn Canada has a very strict immigration policy. Their point system allows only highly educated people or those with deep pockets wanting to start a business. They have to protect their universal healthcare system as well. If they had open borders like the US, their healthcare system would be bankrupt.
13
The current immigration strategy also expresses the uglier side of the dissonant relationship this country has always had with newcomers. Trump, party politics and other dichotomous positions allow some of us to easily distance ourselves from the physical and emotional violence inherent in removal and deportation. I recognize the benefits of doing that in a culture that, while promoting a competitive individualism, also tries to project a kind of inclusive identity. As an immigrant and a student of history, however, I’m no longer surprised to notice that most Americans, including leftists who oppose Trump and those whose own parents are immigrants, harbor some form of anti immigrant sentiment. Is this kind of tribalism inevitable in a mostly segregated capitalist society? Regardless of economics or political allegiance, presidential policies on immigration have always reflected the tensions I’ve seen and heard most Americans of any background express at the micro level toward immigrants—the same love and rejection many Americans have shown towards newcomers throughout history.
7
@Josidalgo Martinez
"...presidential policies on immigration have always reflected the tensions I’ve seen and heard most Americans of any background express at the micro level toward immigrants—the same love and rejection many Americans have shown towards newcomers throughout history."
What does that actually mean? I am the son and grandson of immigrants, and my wife is the granddaughter of immigrants. The US controls its own borders, period.
This is not 'anti-immigrant'. This country decides who gets in and who doesn't. Period. That's because it's a nation.
63
@Longue Carabine Laws, border, nations?! Regardless of immigration laws or the economic situation, at different times, Americans of all walks of life have expressed an acceptance and a rejection of immigrants. Indeed, like it’s the case today, they have oscillated between, on the one hand, recognizing the contributions of newcomers to the economy and culture of this country, while on the other, considering immigrants a threat to the legal and cultural integrity of what this nation is supposed to be. From the beginning, those tensions have defined our national attitude towards immigrants regardless of legality. I believe this will always be the case as long as we continue to be a segregated society in which race and competition are major guiding forces in the definition of people and citizenship, and in the formulation of policy. What part of this argument do you disagree with? What is your point?
@Josidalgo Martinez
You chose the USA, didn't you?
Not Canada.
Not Australia.
Not Brazil.
Not Argentina.
Not Chile.
Not any of dozens of other possible choices.
Regrets?
Maybe you could still try one of those other places.
Immigration doesn't have to be this complicated. While the Trump administration is crueler than necessary in a misguided effort to deter migrants and excite his base, the Democrats have made an awful error in judgement moving so far left as to essentially advocate for open borders. As Jeh Johnson-- Obama's DHS Secretary--pointed out, and as the Editorial Board rightly highlighted, if we essentially hand out parking tickets for people circumventing our immigration system, millions of people will do just that.
Do you think anyone actually wants to apply for a visa, qualify for entry, await a response and then potentially get rejected? Of course they don't. If they can simply come here whether through a legal port of entry or by simply rushing the border and never face any real repercussions for doing so, we will have created an enormous incentive for people to come en masse. Not 1 American in 50 thinks that's a good idea. There isn't a single vote for it in the Senate. And yet all the Democratic primary candidates in their vain attempts to never seem less woke than one another have moved far further left than any candidate in the history of the country.
If the Democrats present the false dichotomy of a choice between de facto open borders and Trump's cruelty, I don't think the 'woke' masses will like where the American people come down on that issue. People pay more lip service to compassion than they tend to possess. Please, God, don't force that choice. It's a mistake
124
@Souvient Don't forget: To a large degree, immigration will follow another law, that Congress doesn't enact and that ICE doesn't enforce: The Law of Supply and Demand. In fact, much of our problem now is that our immigration law is out of synch with that law.
And don't forget, it's an unnatural economic distortion: Capital moves freely between countries; goods move freely; only workers don't.
People come because there are jobs, i.e., because our economy needs workers. When there are fewer jobs, fewer people come. If our immigration policies were based on our economic realities, rather than on politicians' stirring up fear and prejudice (so they can be our protectors), we'd be better off.
21
@Souvient I have not heard a SINGLE Democrat advocate open borders. What I do hear is highlighting the cruelty and inhumanity of the Trump administration as they try to appeal to their base of supporters.
15
@Joe The problem is those jobs filled by unauthorized workers do not pay enough to support a household, including children. We taxpayers are then compelled to subsidize low-wage labor through WIC, food stamps, Section 8 and other means-tested benefits provided to low-income families, including mixed-status households with US citizen children. In other countries with high labor costs, machines have replaced low-wage workers, and people eat out less, reducing the need to import workers to wash dishes for $10 an hour while buying groceries for their kids with EBT cards.
11
Good editorial. Disgust over Trump's heartless actions should not lead democrats to embrace ideas that appear to propose an open border. The vast majority of Americans do not want open borders. Trying to sneak across the border undetected outside a port of entry is a serious matter and must be discouraged through serious consequences. Applying for asylum at a port of entry is allowed under our laws and that applicant should be treated with dignity and due consideration under our law. There is a major and important distinction between these two activities.
I used to work for CBP. The returned policy used to be what happened to Mexican aliens that were caught by the Border Patrol trying to sneak across the SWB. They were caught and simply returned on a bus to Mexico. They could have been prosecuted for attempted illegal entry after laws were changed in the early 2000s but they generally were not. They were administratively removed. It should be noted that many other aliens are simply not admitted at the border when they apply for entry at a port.
If the democrats sound like they are for open borders they are giving Trump an easy political boost that he doesn't deserve. They should be for a rational, humane immigration policy that is in the best long-term interest of all Americans. The hard reality is that such a policy will always require the deportation of some aliens.
78
@James Fear
So just why did the candidates all raise their hands for decriminalization of unauthorized entry? Even the NYTimes thinks that's ridiculous.
They will all be answering for that in the months to come. The thing that disgusts me about these Dem candidates is that they are all sheep. They all fall in line with the Left. They all raise their hands. This is what we want in a president?
2
Mr. Pence , after announcing his impending arrival, and so preparing two migrant detention centers for inspection, came for his official tour of the centers and proclaimed that he was proud of the way the children and adults were being treated and that "every American would [or should] be proud of such treatment."
Nevertheless, the detention centers do not allow unannounced visits by Congress people or media people. And never any cameras. I wonder why?
Pence has shown himself to be as honest as Barr ----defending and enabling Trump to carry out his plan of using pain to deter migration.
And similarly with deportation, Trump's approach is to terrorize the undocumented in our midst. What I find most horrific is where undocumented parent or parents with young children who are citizens are torn away from their family, who have relied on them for emotional and financial support. The children can remain; they are citizens. The family is torn apart. The parents gone. The children must now fend for themselves. Obama, who has his share of mistakes, did not go this low in treating other humans. Trump hits the nadir of brutish inhumanity.
24
Bravo. Common sense at last. I pray Democrats take heed, but I fear they will not.
Trump is brilliant (in the negative sense). He has baited and trolled Democrats into taking positions on immigration that will lead to their defeat in 2020.
Democrats need to slam on the brakes right now and regroup. Yes, we must find a way to legalize Dreamers. Yes, people must be treated humanely and fairly. No a wall is not the answer. But a nation has a right to control it's borders. We can't simply throw open the gates and let everyone in.
I fear the Democratic party is becoming Trumpified in that it is pursuing extreme policies that not only alienate huge swaths of the electorate, but are also divorced from reality and common sense.
185
I think it is too late...AOC, Sanders, and Warren will not be happy until everyone can come in regardless of the laws.
53
@Charlie. Baloney. That's what Trump wants you to believe because it keeps you riled up and lets him milk a problem he keeps inflaming for political reasons. he doesn't want a real solution, because solving the problem will take away his political opening. Dems are far more interested in real, human solutions that work than Trump is. But it's not an easy "slap this on and it'll work" problem. It's going to take thought and planning and we Americans are not very good at that these days.
6
@Christopher Hoffman
I fear Charlie is right; they won't. But why? Where is the good sense? Where is the courage to buck this leftist progressivism?
4
The thing that Trump did, that no other President would even think to do, was embracing cruelty as a deterrent. As with torture, I didn't think my country would ever countenance these depths of cruel behavior. I know I really should be over the shock by now but I still awaken and wonder what happened to the country I was proud to call my home. I also have the uneasy feeling if cruelty works, it's here to stay.
36
@Rick Gage
What is your deterrent then?
How are conditions in the SWB detention centers
any worse than those on the islands where Australia puts asylum seekers and refugees and other putative "migrants"?
Or in Italy?
Or in Turkey?
Or those in the Calais "Jungle"?
Or those in West Bengal?
And don't give us nonsense about release into the interior of the USA pending the outcome of their claims.
Presence inside the USA -- legal or illegal --
is the real prize.
Giving them that before they prove their right to it
is tantamount to giving it to them without any control at all.
Their mere promise to show up for hearings is not enough -- easily flouted indefinitely.
Nor are ankle bracelets -- easily cut off.
Detention is the only way to control both illegal entry and invalid claims.
5
Immigration has divided Americans. Trump would not have been elected if there were not MANY Americans fed up with undocumented people using their hospitals, schools, roads, social security numbers and so on. Obviously, people far removed from these issues think other Americans are nationalists or racists. Obama made t worse when in the two years he had control of both Houses he did not pass comprehensive immigration reform. Then he compounded the problem by declaring DACA by executive authority. Anyone who can’t see the connection from DACA to the huge influx in 2014 of unaccompanied minors is deluding themselves. Middle class Americans did not see Obama’s moves as helpful to their lives. The backlash by Trump is tough, but it does put the interests of Americans first. Supporting anyone who crosses the border is untenable, not inhumane. If this country cannot deport people who have a final order of deportation just open the borders and forget about having any laws.
108
Two categories of immigrants:
Those seeking refuge:
Those seeking to become US citizens.
And there is a third category: those seeking not to become
citizens but seeking work visas only.
A comprehensive program for refugees; and
A comprehensive program for those seeking permanent
status as a US citizen
A comprehensive program for those on work visas.
33
@Carol B. Russell
Yes, but I filed in 2002 to immigrate my daughter
and 17 years later I'm still waiting....
So much for legal immigration.
23
@Carol B. Russell....and many fleeing wars, violence and corruption the US instigated in their home countries.
1
If this current president would tender his resignation, and follow the example of his secretary of transportation, our country would be able to start moving forth and implement some measured, reasoned and viable immigration policies.
Don't ask why, but all I can think of these last few days is about a young girl. Her name was Anne Frank.
30
I want to commend you for a surprisingly well-balanced and informative editorial on a controversial topic.
Activists on both sides are going too far on immigration, and trying to use extremist litmus tests for politicians seeking election. The Democrats embarrassed themselves on this issue in the debates with their rush to ensure that everyone gets in and also gets free services. But they're not unique. Trump doesn't care about illegal immigrants, as he has been hiring them for years. He is just pandering, as he does. His advisors have told him this will get him re-elected because it rallies his base. He can't be even slightly more liberal, just as the Democrats think they can't be even slightly more conservative.
There must be a huge middle ground of people who welcome immigration in general, support DACA, and yet do not want any economic migrant who shows up here set free in the country with no system for sending them back. Neither party is addressing this at all. But they should.
92
We need immigrants. The essential characteristic of the immigrants must be fertility. Native born Americans are both not producing enough offspring and aging. There should be a coincidence of interests; we accept immigrants who enjoy a better life and they in turn produce enough young people to keep the economy growing and pay social security taxes to support the older native born population. Neither party is putting America first in their antics on this issue. It's long past time they got together and put the country before political advantage. It's not practical or kind to kick out millions who have been here for years and contributed a lot to the country. Yet there must be control at the border, a continuing flood of people only brings resentment.
5
@Michael Feely I absolutely disagree with you in almost every regard.
The LAST thing the biosphere of this planet needs is more Americans. We consume pretty much everything at a rate that is something like FIVE TIMES what would be sustainable. If civilization and indeed life on earth as we know it are to survive, American consumption (as well as that of other first world nations) has to be reduced VERY DRASTICALLY.
Fertility must be reduced, not increased; the 'better way of life' must be greatly restricted; the economy (insofar as that means consumption of resources) must SHRINK, not grow; and support for the older native born population is going to have to be siphoned away from the military industrial complex, it cannot come from taxing an endless supply of imported workers.
Americans seem to not realize it, but civilizations collapse, history is littered with their carcasses. And far more often than is acknowledged, that collapse was triggered by an environmental collapse.
I agree with your words "Neither party is putting America first in their antics on this issue. It's long past time they got together and put the country before political advantage." - but what those words mean to me are very different than what you mean by them.
The ongoing worldwide environmental collapse is well ahead of anything scientists were predicting just a few years ago. It is now being postulated that human civilization may collapse by 2050. Think about the seriousness of that.
66
@SB
In short, if we do not RADICALLY rein in everything we are doing, I absolutely guarantee you that the four horsemen will do it for us.
15
@SB
Well, they always have. Are there any exceptions?
2
The people who are coming here and asking for asylum are not illegal immigrants. The people who stay here are not all coming in from the Mexican border. A great many overstay visas and blend in with the rest of the country.
The problem many of the countries in Central America are facing are because of American policies during the Cold War years. We may have moved on but they have not. We helped to overthrow governments there. We funded rebels. We looked the other way when there were human rights abuses because of governments that didn't go over to Russia. Now we're reaping the rewards of those actions. Climate change is affecting those countries. In some cases crops have failed in multiple years.
If we were serious about helping these people and discouraging them from coming here we'd do more for their countries, to make their countries safer for them to stay. How many of us would stay in country where gangs or drug lords threatened to kill us if we didn't hand over our children or if we reported them? How many of us would continue to live in countries with no future if we had a choice?
We need to remake our immigration policy yes. But we need to help these countries retain their citizens and that takes money and will on both sides. So far we haven't helped.
45
@hen3ry
Visa overstays?
Half of all visa overstays are from Latin America.
That's in addition to illegal border crossers,
nearly all of whom are Mexican or other Latin Americans.
Also, the best way to control visa overstays is to monitor much more closely entries and exits and all activities in between of all persons coming on visas and to promptly deport those who overstay visas.
Additionally, impose much tighter "vetting" standards on issuing visas to persons from countries with high rates of visa overstays --
standards like proof of a return plane ticket,
proof of financial resources to cover their visit,
proof of a job -- and family -- in the home country to which they will return.
"Asylum"?
No right to asylum from "poverty",
nor from "domestic violence",
nor from "gang violence",
nor from a host of other economic and cultural maladies suffered by half the world's 8 billion people.
Climate change?
Each country needs to make its own internal adjustments to climate change ---
starting with serious birth control measures.
Mass migration is not the solution to climate change,
especially not mass immigration into the USA.
37
Our intervention goes well before the Cold War. Zemurray and the banana plantations. Started overthrowing Governments starting in the early 1900s.
2
@sam finn. Why not asylum from poverty and violence? If you are white, that's how your ancestors got here - escaping poverty and violence in Europe. Freedom of the press and religion? No, your ancestors wanted to eat and feel safe from the European oligarchs who kept them under their thumbs. Too bad we imported the oligarchs to, because the American versions are doing it to us now.
4
Thank you for this informative and even-handed editorial.
IMHO, the only feasible solution to these ever-increasingly migrations is a comprehensive hemispheric approach, one in which the rich nations in the hemisphere seek to improve conditions, as best as they can be improved, in the poorer ones. This could involve a new trading agreement where these poorer nations again provide the labor for consumer goods intended for the US and Canada that are currently now being made in China and Vietnam.
The US' history of involvement in Central America is not a pretty one - but we can make amends for our previous errors by taking a full and honest accounting of our role in the current destabilization of the region, beginning with our role in accelerating climate change.
If climate change were to progress as scientists anticipate, then much of Central America would eventually become uninhabitable - with its native population migrating either north or south. Many would doubtless prefer to come here. Thus, if conservatives are serious about stemming these inflows of migrants, they should be eager to join liberals in seeking to put the full weight of the federal government behind an effort arrest climate change.
Finally, if America is to take in ever larger numbers of immigrants, then government must anticipate the changes that this population increase will spur, with regard to availability of affordable housing, employment, etc, and make sure that it has a plan to manage these.
22
@Matthew Carnicelli
Some good points. You touch very indirectly on something that nobody is saying-- we're going to need that wall one day, and be glad we have it. And it has little to do with today's immigration issues.
5
@Matthew Carnicelli Nation building. How's that worked out so far?
It seems to me that two contradictory forces drive the controversy over the tragic situation at our southern border. On the one hand, the large influx of migrants has overwhelmed our ability to process and care for them. Those numbers, in turn, are the product of insecure conditions in Central America and the early stages of climate change. The inability of those countries to feed their people will surely worsen, which will exacerbate the struggle for shrinking resources. If we refuse to provide substantial aid to Central America, the pressure on our border will increase exponentially. Our response will not be pretty.
The other force driving the controversy arises from our falling birth rate, which is below the replacement level. We need more people, more workers than we are achieving through natural increase. Immigrants offer a solution to this problem, and we know from experience that they work hard and commit few crimes.
If Trump really wanted to cope with this dilemma, the interaction between these contradictory forces suggests a compromise that both Democrats and Republicans could live with. But he would first have to shift resources to the housing and care of migrants as a signal that he was rejecting the barbarous policy he has so far followed.
9
@James Lee
The influx of immigrants at our borders is being encouraged by the democrats. The majority of immigrants were young men before democrats started going after Trump for the separation of women and children. No surprise, border crossers now have young children. One report about instant DNA tests showed that as many as 1/3 were not related.
If there is any doubt that democrats encourage greater number of immigrants to come, just consider the over 70,000 unaccompanied minors that came in one year alone after Obama implemented a new more open policy.
There is little debate about the fact that millions of immigrants want to come to the US. If you let them, they will come. Democrats clearly want to let them.
10
@ACM. Paraphrased. 14th Amendment, section 2: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states, counting the whole number which shall be determined by counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. ... But when the right to vote is denied to any of the citizen inhabitants of such State, or in any way abridged, the basis of representation shall be reduced in proportion.”
So the census counts all persons, but congressional representation is reduced proportionally for prisoners without the right to vote. Yet non citizens count???
I’m genuinely confused by all of this. What, actually are the rules? Prisoners don’t count, but undocumented persons do? Or maybe their right to vote was never abridged because they didn’t have a right to vote in the first place (like children)?
We pay Congress and the Supreme Court to write laws and decisions that make this stuff clear. Help!
10
@D.M. Women were not allowed to vote in the US until 1920. Were they included in the census prior to that date even though they had no right to vote? If so, can we reasonably claim that the census counts only those eligible to vote?
3
@D.M.
The Courts have always said that the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive control over immigration and naturalization.
The framers of the Constitution assumed that everyone who would move here would do so with the approval of our federal government so they did not think it would be necessary for them to specify that only legal inhabitants of each state should be counted. They assumed that everyone who would be living here would be here legally.
Individual states should not be rewarded with extra Congressional seats for contravening the Constitution by providing sanctuary to illegal migrants.
16
The graphic on Bill Clinton's immigration record does not accurately reflect the nearly 9-to-1 return-to-removal ratio in 2000. Were it to do so, however, his seemingly lenient immigration policy might obscure the expanded deportation categories passed by Congress during his presidency, a reflection of the tough-on-crime climate of the time.
6
Crossing illegally is an overt act of civil disobedience. They begin their residency as law breakers. Then they disagree with other laws, like driving with a license and carrying insurance; and using false identification to deceive employers and landlords; and they don't file tax returns either. Since when does the Democratic Party champion this behavior? There are millions of people patiently waiting in line to come to the USA legally. We're going to lose the election if our political leaders don't stop defending the line jumping law breakers.
197
@Ann International law requires that asylum seekers be in the country in which they seek asylum. They are not engaged in an act of civil disobedience. They are following international law. It is Trump and his minions that ignore basic rights of those interned that are engaged in humanitarian disobedience.
41
@stefanie
There is no right to asylum form "poverty",
nor from "domestic violence",
nor from "gang violence",
nor from a host of other economic or cultural maladies,
nor any right to run free inside the USA
unless and until the claim for "asylum" is proven.
Asylum seekers can be -- and ought to be --
detained -- 24/7 --
unless and until they prove their supposed claim for supposed asylum,
and,
if and when their claim is denied,
or they do not pursue it --
as is usually the case,
they can be -- and ought to be -- deported, ASAP.
17
@stefanie. Precisely. Thank you.
1
Just enforce the law. Now.
Politely when possible but effectively and with alacrity. When there is a removal order, remove promptly.
Families are separated by enforcement of the law all with Citizens. Citizens who defy court orders, even over trivial infractions are locked up. What makes these people special? In making a mockery of the law, they are undermining the very thing that makes this country better than their country.
154
@KBronson. Are you OK with "just enforcing the law" that prohibits employers from hiring undocumented workers? Currently, fines are supposed to increase for repeat offenders, and ultimately the employer can be sentenced to six months in jail. Would it be fair to scrutinize companies like Mar a Lago for these offenses?
88
@Chris Jones
Of course! I can’t imagine why you even ask.
And I would add any relevant laws on identity theft and public benefit fraud that have been found to have been violated.
34
@Chris Jones
I would go after every company after the law was changed to require jail time for management offenders.
30
There are two basics here, a country needs an immigration statute, and a country needs to obey its own statutes, i.e. enforce those statutes. The average random person on the planet does not get to decide for themselves whether or not they will obey that law. What is so hard about this? Cliche/Truth: We are a country of laws put in place by legislatures, no one is above the law.
If people do not like the current law, they should work tirelessly to get their legislators to improve or replace that law. Why is there even a discussion of such fundamentals?
129
There can be little doubt that Trump's cruelty towards those seeking entry into the US has increased substantially since he became president due to his lack of empathy and the fact that most of his base fear an increase in the number of immigrants.
Several Democratic presidential candidates have proposed more leniency in our immigration policies. Senator Warren even proposes decriminalizing entry without proper approval papers.
During the past centuries generally open immigration policies have enriched out country and improved the living standards of all Americans.
But today we are faced with a World population that planet Earth may no longer be able to support and immigration policy is likely to take up much more of future presidents' time. Pleasing all Americans with regard to that policy is likely to be much more difficult.
14
@Richard Phelps
You forgot to suggest a solution.
Securing a nations border, whether during times of war or peace, has always been messy.
The fact that the US Economy is the most functional and open OECD economy means that our borders will be more and more under pressure.
Sending a message that if you try to illegally enter our country you will face many adversities is proper and likely contributes to keeping the problem from mushrooming further.
If conditions in the US for illegal immigrants were really that bad, then they would stay home or stop their journey in Mexico or other intervening country.
78
Well prepared and well explained, I would simply add the following. President Trump built his campaign on the basis of fear and hatred. President Obama built his campaign of the basis of hope.
Acting as Deporter and Chief is a part of the job for President, no one questions that. It’s how the President executes that policy, and how she or he present it to the citizenry. President Trump uses fear and intimidation. That is wrong.
If a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2020, I cannot think of one of the candidates that would come close to using the same approach as Trump. Far from it, they will be compassionate and consider the circumstances of each immigrant. Yet follow the law.
23
Democrat or Republican, any president in the future dealing with 3 million immigrants at the border per year (which is what we are going to get with our current approach to immigration) is not going to have the infrastructure to be compassionate.
2
Immigration was the big issue in the last election, and it will be the big issue in the next one. So, I need to ask one question. I'll call it the "cross of gold" query. Since most asylum claims are denied, why are we nailing ourselves to this particular cross?
74
@Caveman 007
Because of Trump. An angry and powerful cohort of the Democratic Party demands that anything and everything be done to fight Trump. Even when he's right.
4
Trump has seized upon it as the main distraction, the centerpiece, of his political appeal, so voters won't "look behind his curtain" and see the true wizard of nothing.
1
It never concerned me much that Democrats would gain votes from illegal aliens. After all, they can't vote. But then I realized these unlawful residents would be counted in the census. Clustering in urban areas, their presence alone will result the apportionment of more representatives to Democrat strongholds even though a large percentage of the population in that district cannot vote. This will result in a dilution of suburban and rural votes (with smaller percentages of unlawful residents) and will place more Democrats in the House. Now it makes sense.
159
The census counts everyone, not just citizens. Are you upset that the current majority of undocumented immigrants are Hispanic, or just undocumented?
You do realize that at one time, the interior frontier states consisted of large percentages of undocumented immigrants. They weren’t citizens, but did count towards apportionment. Should these States give back what they received due to extra headcount? How about slave states?
27
well stated. this results in the disenfranchisement of citizens.
24
@Power From The Founding Fathers made representation depend on the number of people in a state, not the number of citizens. If not for that, slaves wouldn't have counted; but the South wouldn't accept that, because they wanted seats in Congress based on their whole population, including noncitizens.
So the 3/5 compromise was reached. Now, of course, the 3/5 compromise is gone, and the Af-Am people are citizens; but keying representation to population never was written out of the Constitution. It still is there, legacy of the white supremacists, whose successors now seem to want an opposite arrangement. (Their message: It was good to have noncitizens count when you owned them; not so good now.)
32
"“We’re focused on criminals,” Mr. Trump said on Friday, dodging the truth that his administration’s hard-line policies make little to no distinction between people who pose a genuine risk and those who miss an immigration court date."
The only thing that's consistent in this administration's immigration policy is the degree to which the president's lies (there's no other term). I think, by lying, he thinks he can justify his cruelty towards asylum seekers and migrants in general.
He calls all immigrants criminal; they're not. He calls for an end to asylum as if it were a policy put in place by Democrats, not part of international agreements to which this nation is signatory.
And he lies in saying "we have no room" which is clearly false, given his real meaning, which is, "we have no room for people with your skin color."
Finally he lied about the census, an ancillary issue to the immigration debate because the Constitution simply says, count "all persons", not the number of citizens versus noncitizens.
The president has so demagogued the subject of immigration that the two sides can't even discuss it anymore, lacking a common language of what the real situation is.
32
@ACM
Entering the country in defiance of long standing federal law not to mention working in defiance of further law ( usually under the table evading taxes or using identity theft) are crimes.
They are ALL criminals, period....
1
"The [loser] has so demagogued the subject of immigration that the two sides can't even discuss it anymore"
By standard vile-GOP design. Why bother even fostering discussion when their bad people can simply lie repeatedly while McConnell-ing in bad policy in bad faith? The loads of ad budget they save multiplies nicely in the stock casino.
You see the other commenters here. You can see in their rage and stock phrases that they've long lost contact with the Sane world thanks to that. They're beyond outreach. Outvote!
2
As the last paragraph mentions, key acts passed in the 1990's dramatically broadened the types of infractions that can lead to removal (deportation), including for green card holders. Americans think that there is "due process" for immigrants, but the reality can be far from what we imagine, depending on the circumstances. After a removal for such an infraction, it can be extraordinarily difficult to effect any kind of legal return.
These laws also reduce the discretion that the judge is able to employ to properly weigh interests of state in removal of the individual and damage caused to to the community and to family members incurred by a removal. There are plenty of examples of how draconian these rules can be; one simply needs to Google to be presented with many news articles of separated families (or better yet, read the recently published book, "Deported Americans" by Beth Caldwell for a very well researched take). Plenty of American citizens have had their spouses effectively exiled, doing untold damage on communities across the country.
When policies are bad, we are at the mercy of those who enforce them, including the whims of whoever happens to be the sitting president. To really fix the problem, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act need to be revisited for fairness. Why does this country write excessively punitive laws and take away the discretion of judges?
3
@Joel Hughes It would be interesting to learn how often charges are reduced in order to forestall deportation. Would that be the secret to the low incidence of criminal activity by immigrants? Have the books been cooked? Is one able to get away with more if one is from a sanctuary state?
How many immigrants have a Gavin Newsom for a guardian angel? Or a Bill de Blasio?
18
@Joel Hughes "...To really fix the problem, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act need to be revisited for fairness..."
Very, very true. That law, proudly signed in a big ceremony by Bill Clinton as part of his "tough on crime" schtick, has been the source of much injustice for 23 years.
1
@Caveman 007 Fact-free speculation is no substitute for sound research and empirical analysis. I could just as legitimately guess that undocumented aliens face harsher treatment by the criminal justice system.