Seems like a reasonable compromise can be made, and is it not better to be inclusive, and have Mr. Miller at the table?
The posts to date make me sad. 90% attack Mr. Miller as racist. Maybe he is. But does that really matter? Isn't the goal salvaging the lives of the Dreamers? Or is it landing punches. The posts suggest more interest in the boxing match than the result.
10
I don't think THE goal of immigration reform is salvaging the lives of the Dreamers. Immigration reform is much broader than that.
A big part of Democrats issue with Trump and his administration is a lack of trust. Schumer had a deal with Trump on the Dreamers - for a few days. Dems and Republicans have worked in a bi-partisan manner on an immigration bill which Trump said in a public televised meeting that he would sign as long as they got it to his desk. That meeting seemed more like a reality show episode meant to show Trump as a competent deal-maker at a time that there were questions about his mental capacity. Two days later, that all changed.
I suspect that Stephen Miller had a lot to do with both of those changes in stance after apparent agreements were made. Stephen Miller is likely often the last person to have his ear and so that ends up being Trump's position.
For that reason, maybe it is better to have Miller in the room. At least when everyone left the room, they won't be in for a surprise later on after discussions within the administration tell the president what he should have agreed to. From his public performances though, I don't see Miller as someone who would be able or even interested in bringing two sides together.
When you negotiate with a racist what are the chances you won't end up with a racist result? I figure zero.
1
Reader comments here illustrate pretty clearly why it will be so hard for there to be a solution to the immigration problem. Most are unwilling to entertain Douthat's suggestion that there is a place at the table for those who disagree with them.
That "place at the table" may be personified by Miller, but personal disdain and hatred for him and Trump is such that progressives don't even want to hear that theirs is not the only opinion. As Douthat says, 1/3 of Americans agree with Miller. About 1/3 support current law. That is not insignificant.
Other polling shows that majorities across all demographics support stronger border security, ending chain migration and the lottery, and skills-based immigration. Pretty much what Trump is proposing.
Readers of the NYT and commenters here are a minority in the US, however important and enlightened they might consider themselves.
13
A “place at the table” - for legislation as important and complicated as immigation - should be reserved for Elected Officials only!
Have we forgotten why we elect people? To represent us!!!
Mr. Miller is not elected. He has never been vetted by any elected body. And his views are far outside the mainstream.
So why should any elected official have to negotiate or compromise with him?
I’m not elected either. Why shouldn’t I too be given a “seat at the table” - as a retired Clinical Psychologist - with a bit of expertise in getting people to compromise?
Not that I’m vying for any job. But just as an example! At least this 73 year old person has more life experience - and less racism in my little finger than this guy has in his whole body. As I understand it, racism is both un-American and unconstitutional.
1
There is no doubt that New York Times readers are certainly a “minority” in this country, but unlike you, the majority of people throughout our nation distain and distrust unabashed racists like Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, both of which should never hold a place at any table that is having a rational discussion on immigration.
1
I would imagine there was a significant amount of the population in Germany that believed in the final solution. Just because people support something, does not make it right.
Douthat is wrong to personalize the argument since, as many comments have emphasized, Miller is, quite simply, a bigot. But Douthat is right, despite the knee-jerk reactions of many of my fellow liberals, to point out that a lot of restrictionist views are out there. And if the GOP is in power across all three levels of government, compromise will clearly be necessary if anything is to be done.
Up here in Canada, immigration policy has been a mix of skill-based and family reunion for half a century; we take in more regular immigrants per capita than just about any other country, and anti-immigrant voices have largely been marginalized. In the US some trade-offs are going to be necessary, and isolating the most extreme voices has to be part of the process.
Some liberals may indeed want to steamroll the restructionists, as Douthat claims, but I think that most have seen how far any efforts at reasoning with the Republicans (never mind the alt-right) have gotten us in the past.
The alt-right is already fulminating over Trump's "sellout" by offering any pathway to citizenship to dreamers: if doesn't knuckle under to Miller et al., there is at least some possibility of a start in the right direction.
147
Canada has almost zero immigration from Africa and Latin America.
Why?
1
The diversity fetish with its open hatred of working class white native born citizens and support for massive levels of mostly low skilled "brown, beige, and black" immigration has become the political religion of today's progressives similar to the hatred of peasants by 19th and 20th Century Marxists. Nothing has changed seeing as the hatred is from the top down with the NYT OpEd writers who see themselves as the progressive vanguard. Even that stalwart conservative Bret Stephens is of the new post modern vanguard espousing open hatred and race based social engineering.
3
every single "white native born citizen" in this country descended from immigrants.
1
Jim, thank you for that important fact, however please tell me what the Democrats believe the future holds for down and out working poor natives today and tomorrow be they white, black, brown, beige? Also I am concerned about all native born citizens today and tomorrow who are low skilled or don't possess the STEM degrees. Are they to be offered platitudes about diversity and how we are all immigrants? Can these platitudes feed them and their children?
1
My view on immigration is that America should welcome immigrants, but we should put our neighbors first. This means understanding that much of U.S. territory was once part of Mexico, and understanding that, today, many of our Southern and big Northern cities have strong cultural and social ties to Latin America (i.e. Miami and Phoenix and Los Angeles are just as much part of "Latin America" as Mexico City in a social and cultural sense -- Phoenix is even geographically closer to Mexico City than Washington D.C.)
For this reason, I would support a gradual liberalization of immigration with Canada, Mexico, and some Caribbean nations -- perhaps to something just short of true freedom of movement, although a North American Union would be ideal -- and reducing immigration from countries like China and India where not only is there less cultural and social proximity, but also big problems with large-scale migration reducing wages for middle-class Americans (i.e. Indian IT workers on H-1B visas, which even Bernie Sanders supports restricting).
The win for liberals is that America becomes more pro-immigrant. The win for conservatives is that gradual liberalization of ties with our poorer neighbors will strengthen those countries, ultimately reducing irregular migration from those countries and also reducing crime and violence in those countries (i.e. richer, more peaceful Mexico). Our neighbors deserve privileges in the region -- we must put North Americans first.
31
Yes. This is certainly the path to the future. North Americans have much to offer each other.
Ross hits many excellent points here. But his best one is when he says the Dems will never cut a deal with Trump. Even if an intelligent, balanced policy gets proposed, Schumer and Pelosi are at the mercy of the Red Army base of progressives who have a visceral hatred for Trump. Schumer and Pelosi also have priorities, namely retaking the Senate and the House. I don't see them having any incentive to cut a deal in an election year either. The Dems gave up on bi-partisanship during the take it or shove it Obama era. Why would it make a comeback now?
8
Do you remember anything of the Obama ‘era’.
Like McConnell saying his number one job would be making sure Obama didn’t get a second term (just at the time he took office), like Republicans wouldn’t work with him on healthcare, even a plan they previously supported and was instituted by a Republican Governor in Mass (yes, Romneycare) - all thru 8 obstructing years that culminated in Republican Senators refusing to even meet with a Supreme Court nominee and keeping a seat open for a year.
I do remember and besides thinking Trump a fool and danger to our country (thank-you for that) I will never vote for another Republican.
3
And yet the dems have been party to several by partisan proposals in the last few weeks. It was the White House and conservative republicans who refused them.
2
Democrats were "party to several bipartisan proposals in recent weeks" that were shams, that were designed to go nowhere.
Every opposition party, especially the current Democratic minority driven to extremes by the so-called Resistance, wants to make the first-term President of the other party a "one-term president." That McConnell complaint is the silliest, most whiny foolishness that Democrats make. They can't even see how dumb it makes them look.
1
“ ... illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade …”
Increasing numbers of illegal migrants are again trying to move here. The Department of Homeland Security said that 40,000 tried to cross illegally just in December, and that so far this month, the daily numbers have been higher than in December.
6
This is one issue where Trump and his team's policy is closer to Canada and Australia (and it has been proven over the last 4 decades that these two Countries have had the most sound, sensible and successful immigration policy). I just can't figure out the why such vehement opposition to a policy that is practical and has been proven to be successful. The immigrants who have been the most successful in the U.S have been either the ones who have come in with an education or come to the U.S for an education. America can no longer take in 'your tired, your poor, huddled masses' - that was for a different time the World has changed!
5
As Douthat seems to be suggesting, not all Republican restrictionists are bigots. There are rational and morally defensible reasons to restrict immigration.
But not all restrictionists are Republican. In fact, most, if not all, of Democrat pols who have run the inner-city plantation for generations are, by definition, restrictionist. And all of those restrictionists are bigots: Their goal is to restrict immigration to the downtrodden and dependent to replace captive D voters lost through attrition, and to build an overwhelming dependent majority.
Words are cheap, & for someone like Trump, a blunt, imprecise instrument. You will get closer to the truth if you judge Trump by what he does, not what he says.
Entrenched subservience, bigotry & dehumanization are insidious. Harriet Tubman understood this: "I freed 1000 slaves. I could have freed 1000 more if only they knew they were slaves."
We must deconstruct the inner-city plantation, not bring in new slaves: Ds have controlled the inner-city plantation for generations—Chicago/85yrs, Milwaukee/108…
Trump's appeal to blacks will resonate. An aspirational force exists in all of us. Inner-city captive Ds may be downtrodden/dependent, but the spirit survives. Like all of us, they dream about success, security, happiness for themselves & their children.
4
I also get the old adage that one needs to make peace with one's enemies, not one's friends. It is fine to work a compromise on immigration, but Mr. Douthat's assertions about the necessity of Mr. Miller's presence at the bargaining table fits in the realm of "pundit fallacy": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/opinion/government-shutdown-trump.html .
It is impossible to believe that the likes of Stephen Miller is a requisite to a functional bargain. There are other "restrictionists" who are less strident. There are others with more experience, more tolerance, less willingness to blow up an entire process.
3
Law wage immigrants do not compete with most natives Americans law wage earners. Very few Americans today will be willing to become agriculture laborers or clean houses even if their hourly pay increase. But even assuming that I am wrong I find his major argument about Mr. Miller ridiculous. It has the same smell of the argument among some quarter that Israel would have never existed if not for the holocaust .
5
How does a 32 yr. old gain so much power in a democracy? He has zero experience. Did he even have a regular job where he could gain some experience even if it means at the deli counter. Instead he has become a key figure in this government chaotic as it is. Maybe that is why he escaped scrutiny but this administration is only made up of hoodwinked people, lying every step of the way. Imagine an ignorant 32 yr. old is writing the State of the Union address which is a sacred duty for every President literally to speak about the real health of our country. And this nincompoop knows that? I am waiting to hear vitriol boil over, the hate, the bigotry and above all lies. Something is very wrong when a 32 yr. old claims years of experience.
33
I have never heard a coherent word on immigration policy from Stephen Miller. I have never heard a coherent word on immigration policy from Donald Trump that wasn't totally contradicted by him within mere hours. Trump and Miller are understandable, tragically so, only when they are re-tweeting the hate-filled rants of Ann Coulter. And Ross echoed Coulter with his race/baiting accusation that the Democrats are playing identity politics with immigration, expecting a day when multi-ethnic voters trump nativist, xenophobic, racist fears. As if Ross's comments aren't the most vile form of identity politics. All that being said, I'm not aware of a coherent position on immigration policy from the Dems, either. But put Miller at the table? Isn't John Kelly (and Miller's former boss Jeff Sessions) enough?
16
You write the same kind of stuff that has resulted in the total bigotry of the Republican Party. Over the years, it is columns like yours that have normalized white supremacy. I’m sickened when I read this - normalize Miller, and you normalize Make American White Again. You, Douthat, ARE the problem
49
Current immigration policy isn’t making America less white. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States was 76.9 percent white in July 2017, up from 72.4 in 2010. Current immigration policy isn’t making America more ethnically diverse, either. Most immigrants are Mexicans. According to the Census Bureau’s 2015 Community Survey, Mexican Americans already rank third among America’s 20 largest ethnic groups, just behind German Americans and African Americans, whom they will soon surpass. Nationwide, Mexican Americans already outnumber Irish Americans, English Americans, Italian Americans and each of the other ethnic groups we lump together in the catchall “non-Hispanic white” category. Mexican and Mexican Americans are by far the largest ethnic group in our most populous states—California and Texas--which grow less ethnically diverse each day due to immigration.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
7
You are sounding like DT at Charlottesville. All sides are not equal. One side is moved largely by xenophobia and racism and is not concerned with both the humanistic and economic importance of a good immigration policy. Let them come within in limits from everywhere in a orderly way. Skill-based immigration did not create this great nation. An immigration policy that took as they came created the great country we have today. Miller is a racist and so are many, if not most, of those opposing amnesty for the millions of hardworking immigrants who already are here and are as much Americans as Miller and co.. Stop making excuses.
40
Let's suppose some people want less immigration because of racism.
So what? Why does the existence of some racism trump everything else? If restricting immigration has a good positive effect on, say, the wages of lower class workers against whom most immigrants compete, why shouldn't we restrict immigration?
Some people hear the term "racist" and go into a moral panic. Why should the rest of us care about their hysteria over the issue?
5
Sure - America needs to encourage more poor uneducated, minimally skilled, low-wage immigrants.
Hopefully, these immigrants’ children won’t speak English, and have developmental difficulties.
Then, in addition to providing money for food and housing; and free healthcare; we can also divert money from our already overwhelmed public education system for full-time translators and special education plans and assistance.
Thankfully, we don’t already have a national debt - or a budget deficit - so the additional costs won’t be a problem.
5
Stephen Miler is not an "immigration restrictionist." He is a white supremacist. White supremacy is not a "side to be represented at the table," and you damage our country, not to mention your and your employer's reputations, by writing about it as if it is a legitimate point of view. Miller does not belong "at the table" discussing immigration reform any more than Richard Spencer or David Duke belong there. Miller is a cancer, and should be excised - from the White House, from any kind of national media platform, and from the New York Times opinion pages. The sooner he is relegated to the dustbin of hatemongering extremists, the better off this country will be.
28
--It's been said Miller as a teen bullied + harassed people of color, and as a student at Duke, wrote blatantly racist articles.
--He's been a close friend to white supremacist leader Richard Spencer--- who's confirmed the fact.
--Spencer led chants of "Heil Trump" at a Nazi rally/conference this past November, where he made deplorable statements against Jews, quoted Nazi propaganda and claimed America belonged to white people.
---Spencer told a news agency he and Miller were fellow activists at the Duke Conservative Union.
And Spencer said last December:
"Donald Trump would be the first step for identity politics for white people in the United States. His election was not about conservatism. It was not about the religious right, and it has not been about capitalism or the constitution. Donald Trump is a nationalist, and that is something brand new and it is something to be excited about, because I feel like the tide is turning in the US."
https://www.jta.org/2016/11/21/news-opinion/politics/atl-right-conferenc...
11
Well, Ross, let's be equitable about it: if you're okay with an overt racist "at the table" to make sure there is less "stress" put on our culture (good lord!), let's give equal time to people who hate gays, so we don't let any into the country, or at least limit the number of homosexuals so as not to make too many real Americans uncomfortable. Let's limit immigration to the likes of the "founding fathers:" Benjamin Franklin, who sired more than a dozen children, then abandoned his wife; or Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that Africans were less than human and only fit to be slaves, that miscegenation was the worst crime imaginable, yet raped his female slave, repeatedly (it wasn't "a complicated relationship;" it was a master/slave relationship). Those were days; those were the exemplary Americans.
More moral gymnastics from the immoral right-wing.
20
I don't see any issue with making employers use E-Verify. Do it, and simultaneously institute a responsive way for them to employ said person quickly if their services are needed. If an employer wants a person who is not here legally to work for them, they need to sponsor that person for a visa.
5
I believe that the Democrats have framed the issue poorly.
It almost seems like they're in favor of illegal immigration or open borders.
What they should be saying, IMO, is that we need an immigration policy which we will enforce, but that the Trump's border wall is a gigantic waste of money, being trumpeted by a President who understands nothing about the issues.
Trump is vulnerable on the issue of competence, but the Democrats don't routinely press the advantage.
Every time he tweets a gratuitous insult or any other attention-grabbing inanity, there should be a Democratic spokesman saying "Of course he wants the news to be about that! It's because he doesn't read, he doesn't think logically and he doesn't understand his job."
16
The GOP has always has a lock on the bigot vote, with or without people like Miller.
15
For Democrats to compromise and give the Republicans much of what they want in border security and restrictions on future immigration, we need a pathway to citizenship for all 11 million undocumented in the country now, and not just the Dreamers.
13
Yup, the "offer" is a white supremacist ransom note, we will punt on that racist offer, and we will use this issue to energize our base in 2018 and in 2020.
13
Perhaps if Stephen Miller weren't such an arrogant, nasty little toady, the very model of the prematurely mordant, ideologically rigid, unpleasant-to-be-around snit, it might be possible to take a more pragmatic approach to his, ahem, racism. (Apparently Douthat can do it.)
38
The GOP is letting environmental protection be decimated and is not
willing to protect Mueller. The Republican Party is truly The Evil Empire.
15
I was on Naoshima Island a few months ago and I looked over at
a house across the street from where I was standing and saw
a delivery man pull a package out of a box on the back of his bicycle and rush up a flight of stairs to the front door.
The sign on the box on the back of his bicycle read AMAZON.
Which reminds me, Jeff Bezos was looking for a cause to support with all his billions a several news cycles ago. We have been supporting you all these years, Jeff, now we need your help to spring the Steven Millers of America out of the basket and turn their thinking around.
They will need a Map, a Passport, the Means to travel, and a T-Shirt marked AMAZON across the back.
These Stephen Millers need to
find their little speck of a spot on a Global Wallmap, stick a pin in it, go out there, and get a good look around.
Fear of the other has damaged our politics and that is the first thing that needs to be fixed.
13
Immigration is fought on racial grounds because facts do not serve either party well. Low wage immigration (legal or illegal) hurts all economically vulnerable communities – white, black, and (insert disadvantaged group here).
Ross is right about California: an oligarchy served by a cheap, compliant underclass, working in mostly service type jobs, with little hope of upward mobility.
In Honduras, this is oppression. In California, it’s compassion.
8
25 B for stupid wall hurts, family unification also, lower immigration numbers seem ok for a few years while we take care of immigrants we currently have, merit based immigration great (Canada not so bad), and Dreamers allowed to live their lives-- yay.
Compromise hurts- a lot- especially letting that idiot have his idiot wall Ouch!!! Thats why it's so hard, but getting nothing done, year after year is actually worse. And once you compromise on one thing, you might break the dam, develop trust, and get things done on something else.
5
You left out the part where Trump also asked for $25b to pay for the wall that he promised his voters Mexico would pay for. Or did that detail not support your opinion?
"Especially since last week, Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers, more generous than what many restrictionists favor and with no promise of the new E-Verify enforcements conservatives often seek, in return for a shift (over many years) to a skills-based policy and a somewhat lower immigration rate."
10
The President should not extend DACA to everyone who would qualify under it because it is actually much more lenient than most think. Even the media have said that DACA requires an applicant to have graduated from high school, or to have a GED. The reality is that to qualify for DACA, an applicant only needs be enrolled in an alternative elementary school.
In addition, the common description of those who qualify for DACA as young adults who were brought here at age 6 or 7, neglects to say that DACA could apply to anyone who arrived by age 16. This includes many who never attended school and those who dropped out of school by age 12 or 13, and then came here, following others in their village, for a job. They were not brought here by their parents to attend school. Yet, they would qualify for DACA if they would just sign up for an alternative elementary school program or an ESL class. Many of these people are barely literate in their own language. They would be a financial burden on our country for the rest of their lives, if allowed to remain here permanently.
The current qualifications for DACA are overly broad.
5
At this juncture in America, we have to live with the bigot vote, represented by trump and odious Miller. So be it. Your proposal is fine, all things considered. However, it would never pass in the House of Representatives.
Perhaps discussions might be amplified with reliable stats.
You know - how many this and that and projections yadadada
ie -"California, the model for a high-immigration future, is prosperous and dynamic — but also increasingly stratified by race, with the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras."
ps -Talk about pure pedantry - LOL
2
As the immigration debate plays out, it is worth keeping this in mind: restricting immigration to the US is likely to make us poorer.
The Penn Wharton Economic Model predicted that the RAISE Act—which increases the number of highly-skilled immigrants but drastically cuts the overall number of legal immigrants—would decrease GDP by .7% by 2027. Per capita GDP would rise slightly in the short term, but in the long run it would dip as well. The White House proposal does nothing to encourage more highly-skilled immigrants; it simply eliminates previously-available visas for the family of US citizens and LPRs. Without any uptick in skilled immigrants, it seems likely that the economic impact of the White House proposal could reduce GDP even more than the RAISE act would.
When viewed through that lens, the “various reasonable grounds on which one might favor a reduction” in legal immigration seem, well, less reasonable. How many Americans are willing to sacrifice some level of their own wealth for concerns over the foreign-born share of the population, assimilation rates, or “stresses on our politics?”
Of course, those rationales are perfectly sensible if one is looking for a fig leaf for the “simple bigotry” that “many immigration restrictionists are influenced by.” Pushing back against that bigotry is not only a question of protecting the ideal of America as a free and open country—it means protecting American prosperity as well.
2
Where is Stephen Miller nowadays? His vituperative twitter account seems to have disappeared. Maybe he has, too?
The purported "drain the swamp" presidency, which has proven to be (shall we say, "flexible"?) on the issues on which Trump based his campaign, may have put the young xenophobe in a box somewhere in the basement of the Old Executive Office Building, to give Jared a bigger voice on immigration. (Not unlike what they did when they put Gary Cohn, free trader (at any cost), out as the lead economic adviser over campaign spokesman Dr. Peter Navarro, free - but fair - trader.
This president isn't Reagan. He's George H. W. Bush: will to lay out red meat for the riff-raff (as George H. W. Bush did with the Religious Right), but, in the end, he's as much a swamp dweller as the rest of Washington.
Blue collar and Rust Belt voters, you been conned.
7
It may be a good idea to have multiple views on immigration in the room, but I doubt that Stephen Miller is the appropriate person to represent the anti-immigration crowd. He is such a strident, visible, vocal hardliner that most of us who favor reasonable immigration policies are going to be against anything he proposes because he proposed it. His bigotry and xenophobia is astounding in one so young - especially given his own ethnicity. That said, President Trump would do well to recall that his own existence is due to "chain immigration" since his grandfather brought his German wife back to the US and his Scottish aunt brought over his mother.
6
Mr. Douthat,
If we call Stephen Miller in the Trump world a white nationalist and an immigration restrictionist (especially in respect to certain non-white countries)
to replace what we used to call a racist and xenophobe in more truthful times, what do we call a NYT op-ed columnist who supports a place for Miller at the immigration negotiation table?
We used to call him a conservative and a devout catholic who always preached morals over content, and religious priorities over the Commons.
I guess in the Trump lexicon we could begin to call him "adrift without an anchor" and we could begin to question his real belief in some of the absolutes he used to preach.
6
You really do not want the white supremacist wing of the White House shaping immigration policy regardless that Miller represents about the third of the views of the population. Be careful pandering to the lowest common denominator. An enlightened democracy should be more cautious about intolerant views. I always thought you were better than this America but perhaps not. Perhaps your race issues are now just coming 'out of the closet' so to speak in this politically incorrect era.
3
Who's going to pay for the wall?
Mexico.
That's right. Mexico.
Just thought Congress and the president needed a reminder.
7
I am a San Francisco liberal by birth and upbringing. My father was a legal immigrant. We are nation of immigrants and their children.
But I cannot help but notice that the time period when working class made their greatest economic gains was during the most draconian of immigration restrictions (mid '20s to mid '60s).
I am deeply concerned that this one of the liberal causes supported by multinational corporations. That by itself makes me deeply, deeply. suspicious.
Rationalized immigration policy is highly desirable, but we liberals need to lose the emotional component as much as our opponents do. In the end the facts are always Liberal. Let's trust that and not the emotive alternative. After all a racists "feelings" are just as valid as yours.
9
Once again, it's Be Kind to Bigots Week on the Times GOP beat. I think I'll wait until the current madness subsides and the completely unqualified, reprehensible trash that thinks it's running the government slithers back under its rock. And there' s zero economic support for these claims that immigration is hurting the economy. I'm pretty sure it's the opposite. But don't let that get in the way of making room for the minority of disgusting racists who want to have a say on policy.
16
Leadership can change consensus views. If only we had any...
I have often wondered about Stephen Miller. He is incredibly hostile, arrogant, caustic and insensitive. It strikes me that there is something in his past that he is hiding.
8
Couldn’t get a date.
8
he's supposedly Jewish, but you would never know it.
he was (or made himself) an outcast at his liberal Santa Monica high school, where being a contrarian was his defense against being socially ostrasized because he, himself is a nudnik.
and he is too young to know that just a few years prior, his own parents would have been legally barred from buying real estate in many areas of Los Angeles or from joining most (restricted) country clubs, had they even been interested.
with such a poor grasp on even recent history, Miller is a very sorry choice for his position of such great influence.
I hope nothing bad befalls him, such as tumbling down the stairs of the DC Metro, because as it is nobody is going to help him.
otoh, maybe a personal catastrophe would teach the selfish lout some rach munis.
10
"Especially since last week, Trump and Miler actually made an interesting offer..." ? Where are you? How could you even suggest that the offer was anything but a sop to the likes of you, Mr. Douthat? How can you with even a modicum of sincerity report this as if it were ever a serious offer. Who sabotaged the offer? We don't need to be draining poor countries of their skilled educated people, but for goodness sake we need the WORKERS. Half of South Florida would turn into jungle if we deported the" illegal" people who with their labor sustain the luxurious landscaping we in gated communities enjoy. (Remarks from Palm Beach County.)
15
It’s depressing that in these comments and elsewhere that in an effort to not give succor to Trump, the left has bent over backwards to cherry-pick data that suggest unchecked immigration and diversity come at zero drawbacks. The question is do the benefits outweigh the costs? Economically, a study by the Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine last year concluded in the short-term immigration is a moderate loss and in the long-term is a wash.
While white liberals may like to virtue-signal their way into myopically arguing that diversity — differences in language, norms, behaviors, values — cannot conceivably cause friction or impede legislative progress should read more. As Robert Putnam confirmed, diverse societies are causal to institutional distrust, but yes, those tensions over the long-term can be quelled through assimilation.
Census data shows a tight relationship between wage growth of immigrants and their education, skill and English literacy. Also, migrant groups with larger existing enclaves in the U.S. have less of an incentive to assimilate and pursue higher skill/wage jobs.
As a first-generation American whose parents immigrated here under the current immigration policy, I also understand that America faces far greater competition. America can continue to welcome all but necessarily prioritize those who can innovate and build the companies that allow this country to prosper and meet its public obligations.
9
I am appalled at Stephen Miller's very idea of his so-called, "restrictionist immigration" suggestion This man is a political neophyte. What are his immigration credentials? He should never be allowed to occupy a seat at any policy negotiation table. Is Trump so co-dependent he has to rely on a man of this ilk who clearly wants to "make America Supremely White?". Even Miller's ethnic Jewish family members are non-supportive of Miller's White Supremacy stance. I wonder if Miller is aware of what his immigrant family members experienced during Hitler's Germany reign during World War II?
11
When Stephen Miller joined the WH staff under Steve Bannon, his background suggested that he was many times more dangerous than Bannon. Bannon's goal has been achieved: chaos in the WH and in Congress, "divide and conquer." Bannon's departure changes little other than Bannon's goal to support Republican candidates loyal to Trump like Roy Moore whose loss was significant even to Trump and may have escalated Bannon's firing. But Miller's goals are racist and fascistic, a devout white supremacist. Douthat should be ashamed--he won't be as he struggles to defend the indefensible--in his backhanded praise of Miller. Trump's too ignorant and susceptible to Miller's flattery to fire him. Kelly will go first.
11
The chief idiocy of this column, among many, is its endorsement of “skills based immigration.”
The problem with that is that planning immigration for current skills in demand completely misses the point that one can not predict the skills necessary for the next generation of technology, let alone three more down the road.
If a Syrian refugee had not been admitted into this country, maybe Steve Jobs, the personal computer, the smart phone, and Apple might have happened elsewhere, instead of in California.
Is THAT what you want, Ross?
12
Are you aware, Paul, that the Syrian refugee abandoned his son, who was then adopted by the Jobs Family?
While we may not be able to predict the skills necessary for the next generation of technology, we can be pretty sure that the next generation will require a full education. Most of the undocumented immigrants and most of today's refugees are coming from cultures that value large families over education. They are so busy having children and getting enough money to raise them that education is not a priority.
8
Ann, Do you really believe that "most...undocumented immigrants and refugees...value very large families over education?" Have you looked into it? I know of no native-born American (white, black, brown or other) who works anything like as hard as do the people from Mexico and other Latin American countries, whom I know. If the ability to work very, very hard (day in and day out) is a valuable meta-skill, then surely people who demonstrate that ability should be valued -- and perhaps even given priority.
2
ann Seattle
I could buy your "the next generation will require a full education" argument even in the face of your pathetic characterization of other countries valuing kiddos over education if your party had done anything, one single thing, to support (let alone improve) education of your own fellow citizens.
By the by, apropos your penchant for flagrantly racist and unsupported commentary on other nationalities, Steve Jobs' father was a graduate assistant, his mother a graduate student, when Jobs was born. They split up, unlike every single real American couple who stay steadfastly married and faithful (except Evangelical leaders, of course).
So: no "abandonment" by a dastardly Arab; highly valued education; no scrambling around for pennies to feed the obligatory dozen Muslim kids. What's left of your argument now, you good American you?
4
This presupposes the idea that 1) A proposal from the White House is worth more than the paper is written on and 2) Steven Miller is an acceptable creature to have in polite society.
But we all know Trump is a flip flopping liar and Miller is the second worst human in the White House. I happen to find their "proposal" fine from a policy perspective but there is no one to carry the deal through in good faith. Maybe next administration.
7
Having Miller participate in developing policies for immigration reform would be like LBJ inviting the KKK to offer input on civil rights legislation. The fact that both represent significant constituencies in no way mitigates their malice. And claiming that Miller is somehow distinct from the run of bigots with whom he consorts does not pass the smell test. That’s an especially weak argument, even for one as dedicated to apologizing for the righties as Douthat is.
12
Democrats loudly celebrate the fact that whites are losing their majority status. It’s a fundamental transformation of this nation. Clearly Democrats want to drastically change the economic and social policies by artificially changing the racial demography of this nation. Shouldn’t we have a debate if this is what American people want?
4
Douthat continues to write articles where either he has no memory of how little the Republicans accomplished or have done for the majority of Americans, or that he thinks New York Times readers have dementia.
Forget bringing all sides to the negotiation table; the republicans did a tax reform bill without any hearings or input from Democrats and refused to hold hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Why even consider Douthat's advocating for Miller being included at the table for immigration reform, where has he been the last ten years? I don't remember him writing any articles calling for the Republicans to include liberal and moderate Democrats in the drafting of ANY legislation.
R.Gelb
36 Twin Oaks Trail
Beacon Falls, Ct. 06403
8453008982
8
Nonsense. Stephen Miller is a virulent bigot and anti-immigrant advocate who poisons everything he touches. His views have no place in US government, whether local state or federal level. Most Americans are NOT anti-immigrant bigots, like Stephen Miller, and will support an immigration system that treats people humanely while closing down the problems of tracking current immigrants' whereabouts during their visits.
13
Ross's article is extremely short-sided, foolish, and apparently intended to do little more than insult those whom Ross chooses to characterize as "liberal", that mindless, thoughtless epithet all rightists use to attempt to avoid rational thought or response to criticism. It is entirely correct that Miller and the anti-immigration bigots have no intention of negotiating anything positive. They attend entirely to disrupt talks and make them fail. despite Ross's attitude, As Ross himself admits, they represent a small minority of Americans. Why coddle their bigotry? They must be excluded from the negotiations. And if they don't like what comes out of them, well, there are always losers even in democratic politics. Too bad. Shove it down their throats.
6
There are some people that you never engage no matter what. Evil can be wrapped in beautiful ribbons and wickedness can be slathered in honey. What Stephen Miller represents is the very thing humans have fought for thousands of years, a closed mind with an iron fist. Immigration reform is needed but allowing Mr. Miller a part of it is to render any agreement putrid.
7
I would actually love for EVerify to be enacted across the country and watch the complete collapse of the farming industry in America. The absolute fact of the matter is, whether red or blue America, but especially the farming intensive midwest, illegal immigrants are the backbone of farm labor in this country. Ask a pig farmer in Iowa or a cattle rancher in South Dakota. When these illegal immigrants can no longer work when EVerify is implemented, then finally Republicans will have a serious talk about immigration reform.
6
Ross,
Once again you lost me. It is upsetting that you would be validating acceptance of a racist like Mr. Miller as having the right to help define policy. That you would accept his ideology as worthy of consideration and comprimise, especially when making policy decisions, is disturbing. What negotiating is acceptable with racists idiology? His vision and those who vision he represents should deny and disqulify any contribution from him. No trace of him or the racist deologies he represents should be reflected in any of our policies.
7
Stephen Miller is just another sorry example of Trump’s “experts”. He is undeserving of the position he holds,and Mr.Douthat ought to know better than to attempt to legitimize him.
8
Because of the cynical Hastert Rule the "Freedom Caucus" (why do we let them call themselves that?), has a veto over any non-racist immigration policy. This can only be overcome if there is a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives (a near impossibility because of gerrymandering).
3
Stephen Miller is a scary guy, a racist and a bigot, like his boss.
And yet their offer to extend DACA protections to 1.8 million people and provide a pathway to citizenship, in exchange for more dollars for border security and a lean towards skills-based immigration, seem reasonable. Isn’t that what Washington is supposed to be doing? This seems like a fair deal. The lottery, a silly idea, should be abolished and some reasonable limits pit of family sponsorship.
And at the same time I would like to see our existing immigration laws followed. Even as a liberal, I am not in favor of anyone being here illegally.
Aside from my distrust of Trump and Miller, take this deal so Congress can move on.
6
There is much space in which civilized folk may disagree and seek compromise. It is however repugnant to argue that bigotry must have a place at the table in any negotiation, including that of immigration.
4
It should be alarming that the mainstream media ignores the facts from Stephen Miller's earlier life that would end anyone else's life in any position of power. Instead, I have to learn about it in the comments section and the facts are sourced.
That's disturbing.
Has the mainstream media lost their courage? Are they waiting for a hashtag?
3
Oh yes, by all means, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" He wants "...a shift (over many years) to a skills-based policy..." If you want your son or daughter to wash dishes in a restaurant then by all means restrict immigration of unskilled workers. But if you plan to send your children to college so they can get skilled jobs, then why would you want immigrants who could legally compete for their jobs and therefore lower wages? Talk to 40 year old American engineers in Silicon Valley to see how "skilled based immigration" works out. There are entire suburbs in the East Bay populated by "skilled" H1B immigrants and their families who are happy to live here and work for one half of the going wage for engineers. Shame on the press and the Democrats for not clearly pointing this out every time the Right says "skills based immigration". It's just another way for corporations to keep down wages of highly skilled employees.
4
Here is what the liberal intellects wrote just 10-15 years ago.
1. Barack Obama in 2006, 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.”
2. 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."
3. 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."
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"
5. Glenn Greenwald in 2005, 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.”
6. Paul Krugman in 2006, 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.”
8
No one elected Stephen Miller to any job. He needs to be investigated not placated. Who funds him? Who supported him for the job he has? How did he get the job before the one he has now? I am betting all of this nefarious connections to the NRA and the Russians
10
It is Mr. Douthat who is not being realistic. A "compromise" on immigration is as little possible as a compromise on slavery in the 19th century. Just as the white South would never accept abolition, the one-third of the electorate supporting President Trump will never accept what they call "amnesty" for undocumented workers. How can you reach a realistic deal with opponents whose beliefs are based not on economic facts, but on racism and xenophobia?
4
All types of immigrants benefit America and Americans economically. Some good people have been misled on this, but the evidence is strong and the concensus among economists even stronger. There are also strong concensuses among criminologists that immigrants REDUCE crime and among sociologists that adaption to American language & attitudes if anything is now more rapid.
So an outline of a true pro-America immigration strategy:
--Increase visas for people sponsored by family
--Increase visas for people sponsored by employers
--Create a NEW path that does not require sponsorship, that gives most of its points for skills.
3
It would be a grievous error to let the political right usurp talk of the effects of immigration on wages. When the left glosses over this effect they lose the support of the working-class vote and risk delivering these people into the hands of the far-right.
Moreover, let us also not forget the warnings of Arthur Schlesinger on the dangers of a multicultural society: the more multicultural a society becomes, the more individualistic it will become and the less able it will be to achieve collective projects. Eliminating poverty, underemployment, and protecting the environment are collective projects. A multicultural America is a disunited America that might never be able to address those ills. We therefore need emphasize assimilation above all else if we are to stand any chance of tackling these challenges, and we can't properly assimilate a flood. We've had a liberal immigration policy for thirty years, we need time to stop and catch our breath.
Opening the borders to everyone in the world who'd like to move here would ruin any hope we have of ever tackling society's failings. Of course, it would make a few capitalists outrageously rich, and so we can expect them to be all for it, but for the vast majority of this country, an open-borders policy is pure insanity.
If the Stephen Millers of the world are the only people willing to address this matter in a pragmatic way we run the risk that it will the Stephen Millers who will be in charge. That's not good, either.
7
There are those who oppose more immigration because they think economic impacts are generally adverse. There are some who are essentially racist. But the factor that probably unites Republicans/conservatives the most is the observation by studies conducted by the Center on Immigration Studies and other groups that recent and past immigrants are more likely to vote liberal than the conservative base. Its the ballot box that is fueling a lot of this anti-immigrant angst. That is why the anti immigrant push is as much against legal immigration as illegal.
1
I half agree with Ross Douthat's assertion that Stephen Miller should be an integral part of the immigration debate. The half I Agree with is the part about keeping him in the loop and entertaining his arguments.
The half I Disagree with is the part about keeping Miller at the table.
Miller is such an egregiously pompous person -- and, worse, a narrow-minded one -- that his direct involvement in the immigration policy negotiations has hindered, not helped, them.
Let Miller submit his ideas on paper, if he'd like. Otherwise, keep this contentious boy-man out of the room where adults come to work.
1
Russ is absolutely correct here. We NEED a Miller at the negotiating table in much the same way that we needed George Wallace and Strom Thurmond at the negotiating table on civil rights questions.
3
Please, really? Immigration is no longer a policy issue. It has become a race and religious hate issue.
Miller at the table? Sure, Heydrich's victims could have negotiated with him in January 1942.
When Trump's grandfather arrived in the U.S. in mid-19th Century no one asked his status. Then you walked off the boat and that was it.
America First is America Lost.
2
Most Americans support single-payer. Where is Ross demanding they get a seat at the table?
White supremacism has been a staple of GOP politics since the 1960s, and Miller is just pushing the window rightward. Ross is helping. And shame on him for that.
~
7
It is probably advisable to include a voice at the table for restrictive immigration, one who is speaks intelligently, is rational and listens to others. This does not describe Miller.
3
I don't care for Miller, but I agree that legal immigration should be reduced. That does not make me racist although so many of my liberal friends immediately jump to that conclusion when one suggests reducing immigration. To be sure, Miller, Trump and their ilk may very well be racists and want to reduce immigration for the wrong reasons, but there are right reasons, too.
To those who want current or higher levels, answer the question: What is the optimum population for the U.S.? Should we aimlessly grow population to be like India or China who are desperately stressing their natural resources? Each year we now have to build new infrastructure equivalent to another Dallas. Each year it's more roads, schools, stores, police and fire stations, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity and open space, cut down more trees, mine more fossil fuels, grow more crops, and on and on. This is just to accommodate new immigrants, it is not for the benefit of existing citizens. Trading the unclear benefits of diversity for the clear costs of a deteriorating
environment and natural resources in the U.S. is not a way to save the world and its teeming masses. More enlightened and generous foreign aid and economic policies, and education at home would be much more effective.
7
Necessity for a 32 year old know-nothing career politician whose sole goal is to use the power of his white privilege to ensure that he maintains the power and wealth provided by that very same white privilege?
And we thought the Trumperor wore no clothes.
Turns out it's his entire so-called administration.
The GOP had the option to open up their tent to be kinder and more inclusive when it dawned on them several years ago that America's demographics were rapidly diversifying.
Instead they went full bore into White Power Protectionism and let Trump take over so that their billionaire donors didn't have to make even the smallest sacrifices.
They made their choice and there's really no necessity in trying to defend it.
Trump and Miller (and Bannon and Sessions and Pence and McConnell, etc.) will be the death of the GOP because they cannot keep back change forever.
2
As a Santa Monican, I can tell you that Stephen Miller's views predated his knowledge of immigration. He made the decision to be this person when he moved from 8th to 9th grade -- well before he had studied anything in depth.
For whatever reason, he is a creature of hatred. Let's not pretend he represents anyone except other creatures of hatred. He's learned to rationalize his hatred, but most of us aren't fooled. Especially those of us from Santa Monica.
6
Ross,
When you start by ignoring essential elements of a political dilemma, there can be no true analysis.
To wit:
1) You mention Miller's concerns about crime at the hands of immigrants, yet don't point out that it has long been proven that immigrants commit fewer crimes - of all types - than native-born US citizens.
2) You fail to mention at the fundamental Republican hypocrisy about immigrant labor. Farms, food processors, restaurants, hotels, construction companies and many more businesses - owned overwhelmingly by Republicans - both take advantage of illegal labor and want an uninterrupted stream of near slave-wage labor in perpetuity.
That is what is behind the willingness to not make E-Verify mandatory for employers.
Criminalize the employment of illegal labor - even with a punishment of just a few weeks in jail - and the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration will stop.
There is no need for Trump's wall.
There is a crying need for honest self-reflection in our body-politic.
5
A compromise on immigration would have pieces that make no one happy. OK. But is throwing away billions of dollars on an ineffective wall really something that should be in the mix. What if all that money went to assist the health and education of the very people who voted for Trump as the white hope.
2
Let's consider a couple of instances of Douthat's actual wording: 1) "... increased diversity and the distrust it sows"; 2) "...a bargain that reflects the shape of pubic opinion, not just the elite consensus...."
Let's note the evident presuppositions that 1) diversity sows distrust, and 2) public opinion shapes itself--or at least comes by its shape independently of political and economic forces.
I would suggest that he look deeper, and more specifically, into the entities and forces that are today sowing distrust and shaping public opinion.
That someone who makes his living shaping public opinion, if not sowing distrust, seems to think that distrust is sown by demographic changes alone, and that pubic opinion just sort of happens, and is, therefore, a sound basis for government policy, is just plane odd.
1
Why should liberals continue to allow immigration policy be shaped by race-anxiety? Over and over again through our history—a new wave of immigrants come in, the fear follows, then (since the 20th century) laws and restrictions get enacted in response. This cycle is frankly unAmerican and fails to account for the larger truth, that these immigrants became part of the fabric of our society. We view all our past waves of immigrants now with fondness (Italians, Germans, Cubans, etc.), so where does this national amnesia come from that forces us to have this conversation again after again?
Instead of blaming immigrants from taking jobs, blame companies and corporations that have the moral disregard to lower wages whenever convenient or possible.
2
Stephen Miller does not deserve a seat at the table. He does not model the best people in America. He does not understand family unification so he is not qualified to pass judgement. Stephen Miller is hiding something in plain sight.
But call Low Skills by it’s name: Poorly Renumerated Skills. Value the skills, but turn the spotlight on a society that fails to put much monetary value on important work. Caring for children and providing a tidy house come to mind.
Love, devotion, bravery, speaking out, pioneer spirit...all the values that Americans tell themselves that they admire can not be monitized, but are found in first generation immigrants. The ones who plunk down five hundred thousand dollars for a green card and a condo in the sky from the Kushers are not here to build a community. In America everything IS monitized, and monitized everything has higher value than say, Family Values. Low skilled migrants come with children they love, they work long hours to educate them and sacrifice immediate gratification. They build strong families and strong communities.
Stephen Miller has neither, and values none of these. He won’t build society, his aim is destruction and endless gated real estate.
Evangelicals can no longer claim Family Values, Trump blew that up, unmuffling all that snickering in the background over their sheer hypocrasy. It’s hard to imagine what the Values Voter Summit attendees are telling themselves these days. Stephen Miller can sit at their table.
1
Ross Douthat, your faith appears to be a matter of convenience, taking a back seat (when not downright absent) to your willingness to promote decidedly unchristian values that fit with your prejudices and politics.
I recommend the gospels, and avoiding preaching that promotes materialism and exclusion.
Miller is a monster by any standard, and nobody elected him. He and Kelly are doing a lot of harm, bringing out the worst in their master, the wannabe godkingemperor who promotes the worst in everyone as a phony substitute for "success". He's a conman who hurts people with ease and delight. His enablers should look to their souls.
10
That's like saying we had to negotiate with the pro-slavery folks because they were there. Or negotiate post civil war with the racists in the deal that ended Reconstruction and left black people in second class citizenship, or we have to negotiate with the sexists who think women are inferior simply because there are plenty of them.
7
I believe Rasputin's days are numbered, so Democrats should not give even an inch in any "negotiations" with this xenophobic charlatan.
15
This like saying David Duke is necessary for a compromise on affirmative action.
22
How can a majority consensus be elite? The trolls and creeps like Miller and Bannon, Alex Jones and 45 have made their careers by propagating lies that are offensive to most people. Their audience seems to appreciate the aggressive and hateful mindless humor and the consternation they cause. No one can negotiate with a sociopathic adolescent who only values chaos and whose “positions” are chosen to cause offense not to actually mean anything.
16
“Miller gets his cuts ...” What!?? The Devil you say! And “immigration restrictionist” (now there’s a fun way of looking at Miller’s bigoted position). I’ve read through most of the comments to Mr. Douthat’s column this morning; they appear to be heavily weighted toward compassion and openness to immigrants as well as an abhorrence for Trump’s creature, Stephen Miller.
We live in dangerous times, as the editors are fully aware. I applaud their efforts to present a full spectrum of opinions. However, Mr. Douthat’s column crossed a line for me. We cannot afford to give credence to this caricature of a human being with his unabated mouth and extremist ideas, who is so close to the President.
I do not make this decision lightly, but I am cancelling my subscription today to The New York Times. I will continue to rely on The Washington Post and The Guardian.
8
Is Douthat willing to allow al-qaeda and ISIS on the negotiating table? Of course, he won't, so why is he wasting our time with this let's listen to the radical white nationalist extremist kid from Los Angeles proposal? If we don't negotiate with terrorists, we shouldn't negotiate with radical white nationalist extremists either. Period.
13
My admittedly biased view as the son of immigrants and a member of a Holocaust family is: How much is saving 1:8 million Dteamers from deportation to unsafe countries they’ve never known worth? Right now I’m surprised at the progressive liberal resistance (Disclosure: I’m a lifelong progressive liberal) to taking a deal that provides a “pathway to citizenship” for all DACA recipients as well as those eligible for it. Sure it’s a negotiation and families should remain intact and the normal 5year waiting period for citizenship should be on the table. But, why reject this opening offer out of hand, especially when your hand weak?
3
Allowing more highly skilled immigrants is a real threat to American jobs, for which Americans should he trained. It’s just an H1B program in disguise.
10
Not wanting millions of individuals with no skills and no interest in assimilating is nit racist. I know many of you have been conditioned to believe that, but it’s not true. It’s self interest. It’s not wanting to compete against more people for the same jobs. It’s wanting to be able to talk to your neighbor in your own language about common topics. How is that racist?
7
Ross, the one thing you get wrong is the percentage of Americans who want a reduction in immigration. It's not one third. 62 percent, according to a Harvard-Harris poll this month, want legal immigration reduced at least by half (half a million or less).
And you're also repeating the liberal shibboleth that conservatives want a reduction and Democrats want the status quo or even more immigration. I voted for Sanders in the primary (that's Bernie, not Sarah Huckabee!) and Clinton in the general, and I'm one of the ones who wants immigration reduced by more than half. The reasons are simple: too much immigration takes jobs from American workers and reduces their wages, it's a fiscal strain (Nat'l Academy of Sciences 2016); moving people from low per capita greenhouse emissions countries to the US increases global warming; and too much immigration put Trump in the White House.
9
Furcolo: I don't think your interpretation of the effect of immigration on jobs and wages is correct. According to Time magazine, your cited National Academy of Sciences 2016 study found an overall positive effect long term on the economy and only a small effect on wages of native workers.
"It found that immigration has an overall positive long-term impact on the economy. It’s true that first generation immigrants can take more money from state, local and federal governments than native-born citizens, and that especially on a state and local level, it can be costly to educate the children of immigrants. But the report found that as adults, children of immigrants in the next generation are huge boosters of the economy, contributing more to the government in taxes than either their first-generation parents or native-born citizens."
and
"It’s the same story with wages. Over periods of ten years or more, immigration has only a small effect on wages of native-born workers. Those who are more likely to have their wages negatively affected are prior immigrants or native-born people without a high school degree. In some high-skill areas, immigration may actually increase wages"
3
Foster, as to your contention that immigrant workers lower wages: what is keeping wages down in America is the inability of workers to organize and UNIONIZE themselves. And the number one reason for that, is that millions of immigrant, so-called "illegal" workers cannot engage in organizing.
Since when do Republicans care about raising American worker's wages? Their crocodile tears fool no one.
4
So California has "the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras".
Which, if you look at the Gini numbers in the link to the CIA comparison, is remarkably similar to the Gini number for the United States as a whole.
Honduras = 47.1
United States = 45.0
Honduras is # 27 out of 150 countries ranked - the United States is #40 - with a higher Gini number reflecting greater inequality in distribution of family income. Lesotho (Gini = 63.2) has the highest inequality; Finland (Gini = 21.5) has the lowest.
Bottom line, Douthat's point about California could essentially be made about the U.S. as a nation as well.
7
The politics of immigration are so divisive at this point that any stable solution is out of reach. All is about politics, little about actually solving our problems in a realistic and pragmatic manner. Without the republican internal consensus on immigration there is difficult to negotiate anything. Second point is that, if republicans actually agree on something, the starting point is so far from the reality that any small agreement achieved has no future, and will need to be revisited again. It reminds me the the gun control issue, proposals are so far apart with one side proudly and deeply sitting in the sphere of lunacy that any hope for stable resolution is not achievable at this point.
2
"...and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics."
So did the Emancipation Proclamation.
7
Ayayay! Where to begin? How about "how fast the recent wave of low-skilled immigrants is assimilating . . . ." The first adult generation of immigrants never fully assimilates unless they are already English-speaking. Their children? They always have assimilated readily and they still do today. That's why immigrants come to a new country: for their children.
Then "constant new immigration makes it harder for earlier arrivals to advance . . . ." See above. The children of the earlier arrivals simply aren't immigrants but they have learned lessons from their parents about sacrifice and discipline that all too few multi-generation natives ever receive. Aside from that it is absurd to think that a person who has been in the country for a decade or two, with the accumulated knowledge of our system that entails, is held back in the same position as the new arrivals.
The thing that the anti-immigration people don't want to admit out loud is that immigration is inherently a process that brings more energetic and dynamic people to our shores, whatever their country of origin. These immigrants are nearly always superior to the non-immigrants at comparable levels of education or training.
3
Who would benefit financially from the construction of The Wall?
1. Mexican Manufacturers and retailers of 31-foot ladders.
2. Mexican Manufacturers and retailers of drones to deliver drugs and carry cash.
3. Mexican Manufacturers and retailers of shovels and jackhammers.
4. Mexican Manufacturers and retails of explosives.
5. American investors in these products.
6
Ross has overlooked the reason why even a liberal can question current immigration policy. In a word: environment.
A burgeoning population within a closed system--this planet--portends danger for the generations to come since we have picked the low-hanging fruit. Reducing the stocks of petroleum, clean water, phosphate fertilizer, and tillable soil imperils our sustenance by making us increasingly dependent on uncertain technological advancement.
Current patterns of immigration to the US increase global consumption to the detriment of the non-human environment that supports us. It also provides a safety valve for rapidly growing populations elsewhere that have been incapable of providing gainful employment. And that, in turn, cultivates despair and the rise of suicidal terrorism.
That said, socially conservative roadblocks to family planning exacerbate the problem from the other direction.
If we lose the political middle, we will stray from the path to provide for our great, great-grandchildren.
3
The only comment I'll make is that I still wonder if Miller will really negotiate. You cite Trump's recent offer as evidence that he will, but I'll need more proof before I'm convinced. How much, in other words, did Trump defy Miller this time? You can argue that he hasn't done so in the past. Nevertheless, we all know how totally inconsistent Trump can be.
4
Trump's assualt on political correctness is now license to challenge out loud America's embrace of it's founding principles. This hard fought social evolution was achieved through our sacred democratic system which assured these advances represented the will of the majority. Stephen Miller is not an elected official but works for one whose base includes those who radically oppose the same approach to immigation that enabled their ancestors to come to the "land of opportunity. Miller's opinion may have been relevant when he worked for Sessions: its anathema to what this country stands for and wouldn't be tolerated by a President than knew better.
2
I would agree with having every view at the table to work out a give and take compromise, if. The if being that Trump undoes the hostage situation he has created, Dreamers subject to wholesale deportation if the wall is not funded, plus some other requirements. Trump set ransom at 25 billion for wall construction.
Using the future security and welfare of 690,000 people, that have lived peacefully in our community since childhood, as a political bargaining chip is beyond the pale of any American values, and values we try to project to the rest of the world.
For the good of the country, the most important thing to do now is make a simple declaration that the Dreamers will not be deported, and they will be able to sustain their lives here. Their technical status, eg citizenship vs green cards vs...., to be hashed out with all the other immigration issues, with whoever Trump wants sitting at the table. Stop playing games with the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
1
The Dreamers are not subject to wholesale deportation. For one thing, most of them live in sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. For another, many of them have children of their own now - American citizens by birth. Nobody is going to deprive an American child of its parents.
2
In a paragraph about the "various reasonable grounds" for reducing the number of immigrants allowed, the first is "increased diversity and the distrust it sows." How is that reasonable? I suppose it is reasonable to recognize the prevalence of irrationality and prejudices of all sorts in human behavior, but should public policy rationalize and endorse these traits?
1
I don't know much about Stephan Miller. I don't want to comment for fear that he might have a confederate flag in his house or something. I hope not.
But in the public the exchange he had with Jake Tapper, I believe he was largely correct. I believe that CNN has sullied its name. It isn't news, its nothing but a bunch people with strong opinions.
I don't like the idea of a merit based immigration system, but I think Democrats should take the deal.
I think that Democrats are a bit confused about what we want as voters. On one hand, we complain they make bad compromises, on the other we tell them to make compromises. Let's divide these things out to make sense of it:
We don't like Democrats making compromises on technical things. The banking system is a good example. We don't like it when they create lax regulations in compromise with rich people. We don't like it when they compromise on enforcing the law, like letting fraud go unpunished. We don't like it when they make compromise between rich people.
On immigration, compromise is the only way to go. None of us will get our wishes totally satisfied. It isn't a technical issue where compromise is bad. It's a social problem so complex that nobody has any neat solution. We should compromise.
3
The Democrats should take this deal. The Dreamers are here now, this is a good deal for them. This will help the most people in the present. The "Wall" has not been built, nor will it be for some time, and this restriction on immigration is not as bad as it could be. This is the best deal to be gotten; even if there are political considerations, take the deal.
I understand working with unpleasant people on the other side is abhorrent, but this gets most of the job done for the immigrants here now.
2
If the supporters of immigration expansion and those supporting the current rates represent two thirds of society, then democracy would support a deal favoring their position much more than the restrictionist one third. And yes, if bigotry is driving a position, it should be rejected based on principle. Miller and Trump represent the past; it’s just a matter of time before their point of view takes its place in history. They know it too.
1
"But a bargain that actually reflects the shape of public opinion, not just the elite consensus, can only happen with someone like Stephen Miller at the table."
Douthat, you're missing the point of representative democracy, but in the process exposing its having been undercut by the corruption of our politics. The genius of representative democracy was not to have elite consensus but to have informed consensus (granted back in the 18th Century they were largely one and the same). That informed consensus as reflected in our Congress still means elite consensus is a failure of honorable politics - "our" representatives are too often really the representatives of the highest bidders among the lobbies. It's the elitism of cravenness in the face of money.
3
No. A thousand times no. There is no place for Miller or his ilk at the table. He wants to control immigration to preserve his distorted view of American culture, which is white and European.
I agree that there are reasonable arguments to be made to reform the immigration system, particularly relating to qualifications. We need to ease the path for people who will pay more into the social security and unemployment systems, but not from one particular culture, which is the aim of Miller and the president.
So, put me in the "Never Miller" camp.
2
It seems to me Douthat not only has theological blinders but ethnic and cultural ones as well. What is diversity? What is stressed by diversity? Why prioritize "high skills," whatever they are? (And is it really true those high skills can't be produced natively?) And what is assimilation? What is being assimilated and what is the assimilation into?
Perhaps we should prioritize humanitarian concerns, or people who exhibit charity, compassion and heart, over narrow intellectual talents (which seem mostly to benefit certain industry groups in undercutting American salaries) often accompanied by insecure arrogance, clannish insularity or out-of-place caste consciousness (speaking of distrust) or, on the flip side, a worsening of crass American materialism. Are those not stressors of diversity?
Perhaps we should prioritize people interested in community-building rather than tawdrily selling visas to dirty money which then aggravates housing inequality by parking offshore gains in mostly-vacant residences. Does that import needed high skills?
Seems we need a larger lens. Some things to address are the reasons folks are fleeing repressive regimes, and sometimes those regimes being the result of US foreign policy blunders or, worse, deliberate establishment. And ultimately this issue is a subset of the greater one: the obscenely worsening structural economic and educational inequality in the fast-fraying American Experiment. There needs to be assimilation and leavening at home.
4
I have always been a liberal Democrat, so it's a surprise to agree with Mr. Douthat. In my view, people who break the law to live here have no valid claim to stay. It is obvious how much immigration has contributed to social tension. The economic benefits of immigration, such as they are, do not outweigh the negatives. I doubt the unemployed white male without a college education would benefit much from the shutdown of immigration, but given the prior claim of actual citizens to jobs and attention, it's worth giving it a ry.
4
If the standards for immigration proposed by Miller were applied to his forebears when they sought to come to this country, he wouldn’t be here to assert these draconian requirements.
3
California looks good on the outside, but the inside is a total different story.
Over population, extremely high state taxation rates and the cost of living
is barely affordable for most. It is "also increasingly stratified by race" and
it is the poster child for economic inequality. So whats wrong with taking a
sensible look at our current immigration policy?
4
As a third generation Californian I agree with the barber. California has been overrun with immigrants from Back East and I wish we could have put a stop to it years ago. As for Mexicans, I don't really consider them outsiders since I grew up with them. It's the teachers I had in high school who told me I didn't know how to pronounce 'apricot' and 'Cupertino' that annoyed me, and they always act like they belong here. In the end, we all need to accept our new neighbors and like Rodney King said, 'Just get along'
The U.S. Census Bureau now publishes an annual poverty report titled the Supplemental Poverty Measure that takes regional cost of living into account. The report is changing perceptions regarding which areas of the country are rich and which are poor. The most recent report shows California is by far the poorest state, with 20.6 percent of its residents below poverty level. Florida was the second poorest state, with 19.0 percent of its residents below poverty level. New York and Louisiana were tied as the third poorest states, with 17.9 percent of their residents below poverty level. The report showed the poverty rate in Mississippi, once regarded as the poorest state, was 17.0 percent. (Source: The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2015, page 9-10.)
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo...
4
Once again Mr. Douthat's column is an exercise in right-wing political correctness. He goes to great lengths to describe those opposed to immigration in the blandest, most inoffensive terms: 'native working class,' 'white anxiety,' 'native wages.' Yes, such things do reflect the shape of public opinion. It would be simpler, more direct and waste less ink to ditch the PC and describe the position offered by Stephen Miller as white nationalism, authoritarianism or heaven forfend, fascism.
5
For the groups allowed to dictate our national, one-way conversation, immigration and immigrants --only from non-European countries -- are the raison d'etre of the U.S and central to "transforming" it. In this cultish way of thinking, the native born exist only to enable. They are never interviewed, and Heaven forbid, they have a place at the negotiating table. Witness the faux outrage. With stunning self-abnegation, we pander to increasingly hostile ethnic-centric lobbies.
This is not like other waves of immigration. Radical leaders openly boast, "we will replace you." Hw dare anyone object to such friendly agendas? Captured Democrats shout for more! There are billions living in failed state and undeveloped nations woh want to come to Western countries. In every way, the US has been extraordinarily generous. America is an idea, but the culture and ethos that birthed and sustained that idea should remain dominant. There is every rational reason to slow immigration while preserving entry for the appreciative and needy.
their radicalized "leaders" who insist on balkanizing this country by ethnicity and race and differences have done them great harm.
4
When Ross Douthat suggests there is a place at the immigration conference table for one as hatefilled and odious as Steven Miller, it fulfills the great fear that so many Americans had when Trump became president:
"Normalizing." This is what it looks like.
5
The U.S. has been awarding nearly 3/4's of all green cards to members of extended families, regardless of their education, skills, English fluency, or over-all ability to assimilate.
According to a 10/31/16 article in The Guardian titled, "Factbox: Canada's immigration system and targets for 2017", Canada planned to admit 2 and a half times as many immigrants under its economic category as under the category for extended family reunification. The economic category is restricted to immigrants who could easily assimilate and who would contribute to the Canadian economy.
To be economically viable in this modern age, we would be wise to adopt the Canadian system.
3
Mr. Douthat:
You always promote your Christianity, but your commentary doesn't seem to be very Christian.
The people who need to come to a safer place aren't necessarily the educated and wealthy. Many are refugees from war-torn lands, and starving.
Stephen Miller is an elitist, and probably racist. We have taken in Irish, Italian, eastern Europeans throughout our history. There are 330 million of us mostly descended from these immigrants. We need immigration to be something special to the people who come. Not just economic refugees, but those who want to raise their families for the future.
Stephen Miller should not be listened to. I don't think the Mayflower had his ancestors on board.
1
The U.S. immigrant population isn’t very diverse. According to the Pew Research Center, 27 percent of U.S. immigrants come from just one country—Mexico—which has only 1.7 percent of the world’s population. The immigration policies advocated by Stephen Miller will provide a more racially and ethnically diverse stream of immigrants.
2
When is Ross Douthat coming out of the closet as the full blown Trump supporter that he so clearly is? In last week's column he included the insight that Trump has not yet violated the norms of the presidency to the same degree as, yes, FDR and Obama did in his opinion. It beggars belief that anybody could write down that sentence after the year that we have had unless, of course, you are a full blown Trump supporter.
What are the president's supporters afraid of? Why do so many hide behind the vail of ambiguity and pretend to be more centrist and less supportive of the president than they really are? Ross is by no means the only one. Frequently, in online conversations now you see the opening: "Well, I don't really like Trump, but..." and then comes the full endorsement of his presidency or a passionate defense of one of his plunders. Be honest. That is the only way that we can have a serious discussion.
2
Mr. Miller isn't just a "restrictionist"... he's a "reversal-ist": he wants to reverse what has already happened by sending all Dreamers home presumably no matter what skills they've brought to the wok force and no matter how they've contributed to the economy. How is that fair, just, or helpful to the well-being of our nation? Furthermore, if " illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade" why do we need a "restrictionist" at the table? Finally, what evidence is there that any of the bi-partisan Dreamer legislation will increase the flow of immigrants?
1
Trump and Millers deal is the bidding of the corporate world let’s keep the wages low of those Americans who go into the hard degrees in college. Let’s imports some patently unqualified non thinkers from India and China who will work for $60k a year and be in fear of deportation.
I worked hard an received my Masters degree in Engineering from Purdue in 1983 ( I am a girl so I needed a Masters to get hired). Boys got hired with a Bachlors for $24,000.
By the 1990’s new graduates pay had risen to $50-60k a year their was talk that some were demanding $70-80. We couldn’t have that because Engineer at that time leveled out at that. You had to become a manager to broach $100k.
So what would happen next the false scarcity of the we can’t find any qualified people and the HB-1 visa’s that all the companies wanted. Alas they only have to pay $60,000 and no benefits for these visa holders. That is why they can not find any Americans. Of course not. Not when an Engineering degree takes 5 years on average to obtain at a Bachlors degree and costs 40-50k her year or $200k. If these really are the best and the brightest then they should be paid a minimum of a GS-15/10 plus 25% benefits factor. That is the world wide expert level in the Federal government for a position. Private sector pays more!
By the way these India imports are the equivalent are to someone who went to coding class for a few weeks. They tend to be misogynistic and racist
2
"...increased diversity and the distrust it sows ..". That statement says all we need to know about Douhat's belief in immigration.
The funny thing is I agree with him. The deal is acceptable, especially since any immigration restrictions can be reversed once Trump is kicked out of office. So why not negotiate and save the Dreamers and maybe even the Salvadorians?
2
People love to forget that we live in a democracy. Consuming only news that confirms to your views might let you think otherwise. But much of the nation does not want mass immigration of unskilled immigrants who have no interest in assimilating into American culture. They get to vote. Miller represents their views.
2
Miller is simply a scary person, utterly devoid of compassion or empathy. He seems so detached behind those sullen eyes. I don't like him.
But I have to agree having him in the public eye representing the President, and issuing his dictatorial proclamations, "You will not question this President," really helps the saner and larger part of the country see what we need to do in 2018.
1
Enacting a skills-based policy will be impossible to construct, much less practice.
Who decides what skills are needed? When? On what schedule?
How will some bureaucrat know what American employers need now, in 6 months, in 18...? How do we figure where they should go? Where they must live? Where is the info for what is needed where going to come? How will it be analyzed, and doled out? Is the anti-bureaucracy TrumpWH going to create yet another heavy bureaucracy to figure this out, from scratch...?
Then of course there is very real issue that many people could come in as X qualified, but in no way wish to pursue X, but instead their dreams of ABC. People come to the US to pursue a dream/s, many of which are not aligned to a narrowly defined job they maybe had no choice in pursuing back home.
Are we gonna kick out "Bob" if he decides to open a food truck instead of being the thing we let him in on...?
"...the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."
This is the guy who must be at the "negotiating" table?
Whatever the problems with past bipartisan comprehensive immigration plans, they all aimed at increased skill-based migration. That view was not unrepresented at the table.
There is no reason to believe that Miller, Bannon before him, Kelly, Cissna, or other Trumpists just want more skilled immigrants.
All the policies they support would actually reduce the numbers of skilled immigrants. Beyond the draconic featutes of proposed legislation, the directives and rules they are implementing RIGHT NOW make all types of immigration more difficult.
1
Miller has never been a positive force in this administration. The evidence lies in the many people in his own party who don't want him at the table. He is not just the other side, he represents the very extreme position of the other side. Putting a man like this in the middle of negotiations is making sure nothing will ever get done. He is the agent of those who want to take the nation back to the era of the old south.
1
Someone needs to explain to me why, at this moment in time, we would want to import into America a large number of unskilled workers. We keep hearing that unskilled workers don't get paid a living wage, and need government assistance to get by. Automation threatens to eliminate millions of the unskilled jobs that exist. Studies show that upward mobility by people at the bottom of the wage scale is disappearing, and that few of them or their children get out of the lower class. And for the unskilled workers here, the addition of millions more unskilled workers to compete with them will only worsen their predicament.
If economic circumstances change, and suddenly there are a lot of high-paying jobs for unskilled workers that are going unfilled, we can open up the immigration spigot. But right now, why do we want to import workers who will lower wages for the lower class, result in higher unemployment for unskilled workers, need government assistance to survive, and whose children will end up in the same situation? I'm very serious here -- somehow explain why we want to do this.
4
This is a thought provoking piece and Douthat is correct to state that there are sizeable groups of US Citizens who are un-nerved by immigration for reasons that have to be considered. But, Miller and his cohort do appear to be more driven by racial animus and religious bias than by any stepping back to look at short and long term economic consequences of various immigration policies. Since democrats and moderate Republicans need to lead on policies that build this country up rather than divide, it is necessary to acknowledge and address rational and less than rational fears about immigration. But, that's just a first step on the road to sane policies that are just and economically sound in this nation of immigrants.
2
Your problem, Ms. Peabody, is that The People have determined that is the Republicans and the moderate Democrats that should be leading the compromises.
After all, it is the Republican that has occupied the more than 1000 seats that the Democrat has ceded over the past eight years.
Do you have a problem with the fact that elections determine whose voice is most prevalent in our legislative chambers?
If you wish that situation to change, then it is incumbent on you Democrats and liberals to start winning elections, and to do that, you are going to need to have candidates that will garner the support of the moderates of both parties and that ever-elusive group called the Independents.
Please don't presume a power that is not yours to exercise. It is an insult to our republican form of democracy.
4
By your own reckoning Miller represents the views of only one third of Americans. Why shouldn't this minority be steamrolled?
Perhaps one third of the country would choose to scrap Social Security. For sure one third would repeal Obamacare.
What happened to majority rule? The Republican party & all its money & propaganda tools. So now the wishes of the majority are held hostage to the insanely misinformed viewers of Fox News.
Enough! Time to destroy the evil conspiracy known as the Republican Party/Conservative Movement. Their willingness to back treason presents the opportunity. Let's do it!
22
What happened to majority rule?
It was never a concept that the founding fathers held dear. In fact, they were sorely afraid of a full-on democracy, which is why they came up with the bicameral legislatures with one house representing The People, and the other representing The States.
The founding fathers were also afraid of vesting too much power in a single branch of government and used the concept of three co-equal branches as the mechanism to forestall the abuses that majority rule could impose.
But what concerns me most about your remarks, ma'am, is that you fail to recognize that the conservatives/Republicans hold the majorities in most of the state legislatures and governors chairs, in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and hold the high office of President of the United States.
If you are for majority rule under our Constitution, then you should be comfortable with the Republicans establishing the new rules of immigration of the next few decades.
3
So you actually know how most American's feel about immigration? Not if you think the Republican party speaks for America, because the stats don't come close to supporting your fantasy.
1
You ask: "What happen to majority rule?" The answer is political party hacks destroyed majority rule. They created the Senate's "60 Voter Rule." It takes 60 votes out of 100 to end a filibuster in the Senate, so you have to have voted to pass a bill through the Senate, even though the Constitution requires only a simple majority to pass all measures except treaty ratifications, impeachments and constitutional amendments. in the House, bills only reach the floor unless it has the consent of the majority of the majority party. Even though the Constitutions assigned political parties no role to play in government, we have acquiesce to rule to political parties.
2
Miller should remember his Jewish ancestors would have been barred under his idea of immigration. A truly disgusting Know-Nothing.
21
Not true, actually. Nowhere in the current WH immigration reform proposal does it include those types of descriptions.
1
Trump wants to put a freeze on immigration. At the same time he wants to spend as much as possible on a new refrigerator for his jet. After all he needs a lot of room for his cheese burgers on his wasteful trips to Maro Lago. Perhaps he sees the new freezer on his jet as a counter part to his Mexican Wall that serves no purpose other than to stroke his ego and send a lot of tax payer money down the drain.
7
Negotiate with "the President's authority [to execute a travel ban barred by federal courts] will not be questioned" Stephen Miller? Douthat, you are trolling us.
12
Be careful in pushing this "barred by federal courts" stuff. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the injunctions offered by the District Court judge in California and the approval by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were in error and it was unlikely that they would prevail on the core question.
I would be really concerned about taking this/these cases to their conclusions as the Supreme Court has already signaled their viewpoint, and an actual ruling by that body would remove most or all of the ambiguities on which the lower courts are relying for their opinions.
It is quite likely that pursuing that avenue would be nothing more than a foot-shooting exercise.
1
Miller made the comment before the Supreme Court ruled. Way before.
1
Hasn't it become more than clear that a "bargain with this president" = bargain with the Devil? Grand or not!
4
The continued normalization of behavior/beliefs that are abhorrent to the majority of the country further serve to tear down the framework on which it is built.
Having racists in the white house is bad enough. Allowing them to infect conversation on immigration, or anything else, is only not necessary, it serves to give these ideas credibility that they should not have.
10
I have had enough of the NYTimes' editorial decisions to normalize fascism and this Douthat piece implying pro-White immigration policies are no more harmful than political trades over a new highway or city park somewhere. I am cancelling my subscription, because as a liberal (whose wife and children are Jewish), I can't let my money support this. It was bad enough your headlines gave Trump the election, now your silence about the guy flashing WP (white power) signs is just complicity.
11
I’m Jewish too and this is one of the few things printed in the Times that I agree with. Fascism is identity politics. It’s not wanting skilled immigrants who want to assimilate
2
This man would never get and invitation to any event I took part in. I find him vile, repulsive, destructive and just plain rude. He is horrible.
6
There are those, Ms. Herring, that see your expression of your dislike as vile, repulsive, destructive, and just plain rude.
In spite of my disdain for your viewpoint, I WOULD welcome you at any event I took part in for the basic reason that without debate, we eschew knowledge. It would be interesting to explore the bases for your expressions of dislike.
2
In other words the bigots can veto any plan they don’t like so any plan that actually gets agreement will be bigoted.
4
John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Marco Rubio, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin are all people who were elected to legislate. Stephen Miller is just someone who walked in off the street, and is a long-term xenophobe to boot. Why does he have more to say than some drunken bigot in a bar?
20
Steven Miller is representing the duly elected Chief Executive of our nation.
Trump is free to delegate whomever he wishes to be part of the negotiation.
That you don't like Miller is both obvious and your right. But it is NOT your right to dictate who represents the President and the Executive in any conversation.
If you wish your view to be heard, then I would suggest that you make the effort to offer candidates who can appeal to the moderates and independents...the ones who actually determine elections...and win a few of those elections along the road.
2
Ross Douthat is over complicating the immigration issue in this column and makes Steven Miller into a reasonable man. Negotiating with Stephen Miller is like negotiating with David Duke or Richard B. Spencer. These are neo nazi racists who fundamentally believe in tribes and castes. What is always so convenient about these racists is that what ever they propose, they are part of the tribe that is entitled by their race. They are not negotiating on immigration in good faith but are just trying to make America white. Stephen Miller is a racist like Trump and American patriots now see the GOP nods and winks at this.
11
Stephen Miller would not exist if his desired immigration policy had been in place when his grandmother came to the USA as she only spoke Yiddish.
9
Miller's tendencies remind me of alt-right, Neo-Nazi, white supremacists — I'm not convinced he doesn't harbor the same twisted, un-American convictions. Like most of Trump's appointees, I don't understand why he's been elevated to such lauded status — unless of course Trump shares the same ugly views, then it's very simple to see: they're hateful, discriminatory bigots, and much too comfortable with goose-stepping mobs, a.k.a. "good people on both sides."
9
There's absolutely no place for a racist in the negotiations. We don't need or want them.
12
No compromise with bigots, no deals with racists. My father and uncle fought for that belief in WW II.
Too bad you don't believe in those same ideals Mr. Douthat
10
Occasionally Mr. Douthat is lucid. Today is not one of those occasions. He states in the fourth paragraph that "About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced."
Since when did a distinct minority represented by one of the most reprehensible human beings on the face of the Earth--I mean Miller, not Trump, even our lying liar of a president isn't quite as bad Miller--get to dictate policy?
Were Trump not a babbling idiot who has no clear sense of what he actually believes, an immigration deal would be done, crafted by members of both parties who generally agree on the issue and have arrived at consensus. In case we've all forgotten, that's the way policy is supposed to be made.
Apparently, Mr. Douthat prefers the type of tribalism that has made our political system totally dysfunctional. Were Trump a real leader he would sweep the Millers and Jim Jordans aside and broker a deal that would be supported by the vast majority of Americans, place our nation well on the way to healing a number of serious wounds, and enable millions of people to contribute fully to our nation's growth and prosperity.
Steven Miller is a racist xenophobe who wants none of those things and his presence at the negotiating table is fatally poisonous.
13
Because we live in a democracy. You don’t get to decide alone what American policy is.
2
Why wasn’t same policy agreed upon when Obama the Icredible Genius was our President? Or Bush? Or Clinton?
1
Is it possible that Stephen Miller could be more obnoxious. Most likely.
8
Douthat repeats Miller's tired old right wing complaint that today's immigrants just aren't assimilating.
Poppycock. This is classic ethnic prejudice and nothing more.
My great-grandparents could still speak German. Their ancestors arrived in America between 1700 and 1740. Today's immigrants learn English in one or two generations.
The ethnographic literature reveals that today's immigrants adapt rapidly to their new surroundings. They also bring cultural change to America, and always have. (Ben Franklin complained excessively about my maternal German ancestors.) Do the David Millers and Ross Douthats of this world wear powdered wigs? No. Was there pizza in 19th century Tennessee? No. Are Chinese fortune cookies and sriracha sauce from Asia? No. There haven't always been synagogues in Kansas, either, and I'm sure Kansas is better off for having those folks.
Saying "they" aren't assimilating is just a whiny form of ethnocentrism. Hey, don't panic, culture changes. Surf the wave.
7
What do you mean, when you claim that the overwhelming majority of immigrants “assimilate”?
No, Douthat. There is no reason an inexperienced, extremist, hard-liner should be at the table. None. It's a toxic combination.
9
No one elected Stephen Miller.
11
No one elected you. either.
Note that President Trump is allowed to select any person that he desires to represent him and the Executive Branch in conversations about pending legislation.
It is repulsive that you are suggesting that he cannot or should not.
If you want different people to be engaged in the discussion, win elections.
1
the problem would be believing any proposal Trump and Miller propose ( I can't believe I just wrote "AND Miller"! Who is he, why is he even at the table?!).
There is no credible there, there. No principle except, chaos, disruption, anarchy. Wake up Douthat, smell the turpentine!
4
Did Mr. Douthat just make a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy reference? (“Beware of Leopard “). If so, he should remember that Douglas Adams’s future worked because it accommodated all aliens, even Vogons with their poetry.
2
This is the same as saying that sometimes certain things can't get done without a dictator. Your argument is ridiculous. Miller is a cancer on democracy, as he has expressed, in his own words.
6
Ross’s affinity for Stephen Miller is predictable. Ross asks "If you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented, you might consider making a counteroffer“ is his only justification for sympathizing with Miller. It is absurd and dangerous. Miller is not repulsive just because he lacks even a modicum of civility, an absence of human empathy, it’s also the content of his talking points. Miller’s talking points are contradictions of the shared reality and evidence, coupled with racist, hate filled propaganda devoid of any rational connection with issues at hand. Sean Hannity a propagandist and Alex Jones a thinly veiled fascist do not hold office or any responsible position. Including them “at the table” is never going to happen yet Miller and Trump get too much of their “facts” from these hustlers.
America can never include the alt right, Nazis, KKK, as legitimate participants in our democracy, because they are anti-democratic. Ross asks for parity with a person who denies any other opinion. Ross wears his religious conversion on his sleeve and it is a version that denies the efforts of his Pope to humanize and restore compassion to Catholicism. It is a version that is homophobic, male supremacist, and intolerant. He and other “conservative Catholics” are free to believe whatever they want under the First Amendment. What they cannot do is impose their beliefs on us all. Miller represents an effort to deny that freedom to everyone.
6
What's wrong with skills-based recruitment?
2
"Skills based immigration" is a con. That is industry's desire for cheap skilled workers to undercut skilled American workers. Don't we want low skilled immigrants to free up the Skilled workforce already in America to do what they do best? A PhD is better off doing research than picking crops.
Negotiate with Miller? That's like Chamberlain thinking he can appease a racist tyrant of old. Steven Miller has no place at the table. His only qualifications and claim to fame are his bigoted hateful bias against immigrants. He's interested in the racial cleansing of our nation, just like his boss.
Mr. Douthat, are you really gullible enough to believe trump-Miller's "interesting" offer of amnesty and citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers? Once they get their wall and billions, they will yank their promise away as fast as trump has reneged on all his previous deals - like Mexico paying for his monument to self - a self-wall. Of course trump loves Dreamers, that is why he eagerly signed away their protection to use them as pawns and still kick them out in the end. We call it a ransom note because it is.
Stephen Miller has no place in the White House or any place in the people's government.
5
Anything the administration offers should be viewed with some skepticism. The offer might simply be an attempt to split the Democrats. As for Miller, even if I agreed with him, his juvenile and nasty personality make him the last person I would want at the negotiations. Maybe he, Hicks, Pappadopoulis and the administration's other pre-pubescent conundrums can host Sweet Sixteens for each other. They are particularly ill-suited to running our country.
4
As with most things, Douthat misses the point because he is blinded by his own partisanship.
"Illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade."
- In other words, it decreased under Pres Obama. In fact, there were 150% more deportations under Pres Obama than Trump. Why do Douthat, Trump, and all the RepugniCants keep framing it as a problem caused by Liberals? Because they lie about facts, solely to demonize us Liberals and foment divisiveness in our country for their own political gain.
"This approach doesn’t represent the actual divisions in the country. There is still a consistent pattern when you ask about immigration rates: About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third want immigration reduced."
- Simple math: 2/3 of the country are fine with current rates; only 1/3 want a reduction. In Douthat's world, 2/3 of Americans favoring something means a "division?" That's only because the minority 1/3 comprise the RepugniCants' base; placating their opinion matters more than actual facts.
"Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers."
- When the Liberals propose it, it's evil; but coming from our side, it's good. (Just like the ACA.)
"Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers, more generous than what many restrictionists favor."
3
So you want to exclude unskilled labor? Who will work the trades, Ross?
3
If William F Buckley were alive today he would vanquish Trumps cabinet back from once it came, to the corner stools at the Busy Bee bar at closing time.
2
Stephen Miller cannot be negotiated with because his positions on immigration are evil. The truth be told, he was born in this country because his ancestors came here to escape the pogroms and ghettos in Europe.
His ancestors had little more then the clothes on their backs and the loose change in their pockets when the boat arrived at Ellis Island. The need to take low level unskilled jobs to house and feed their families superseded whatever education or skills they had in the old country.
Miller's ancestors came to America for freedom and a better life for their children. He is the recipient of the American dream but fights to deny it to others. He is evil!
7
I'm convinced Stephen Miller is a shape shifting alien sent here to destroy the human race. What? Good as any other theory.
5
SStephen Miller is ‘a nasty piece of work’ by most people’s standards. His relationship with Richard Spencer, the white supremis, is telling. Sadly, he’s found the perfect home. Hopefully it will be temporary.
5
How is the position of, in your figures, two-thirds of the country "elitist"? And why do the supporters of ignorance and bigotry deserve to be factored in, let alone have a controlling role? Should flat earthers have a seat at the table for all map-drawing decisions?
7
This article can be paraphrased as, “ Stephen Miller may be a racist, but there are a lot of racists in the United States and they deserve a seat at the table, too.” Historically, when this approach – allowing the worst of human impulses a say, simply because it exists - Is taken, tragedy follows.
7
Hmmm. Isn't policy shaped by a vocal and substantial subset of the population how Germany went off the rails? And wasn't it likewise nationalist and racist (i.e. restrictionist) policies? Is "restrictionist" the new euphemism for unrepentant bigot? These ideas and the people who espouse them don't need to be included, they need to be shamed out of the public discourse.
7
Conservatives seek E-Verify? That’s a laugh. Conservatives, as always, blame the victim. Who benefits from high legal and illegal unskilled immigration? Farmers, construction contractors and slaughterhouse owners — all Republicans. Throw one or two of them in jail for hiring illegally and the problem is solved at virtually no cost. But we all know that won’t happen. No, the Republican goal is to keep the issue on the table for political purposes, while continuing to ensure a steady stream of slave labor — and distract the rubes with a $25 billion joke of a wall.
2
Ah! Stephen Miller! He sounds like Putin and I can bet this State of the Union Speech written by him for the this President will be very Putinsque. Wonder if there will be a loud, " You are a Liar " shout from the audience. That would be true and earned rightly. Maybe Trump would be better served if he went off script. At least Trump would be honest about his dishonesty.
2
ah yes, Miller the 34 year old, who manages to monopolize the debate, and has nothing to offer but racism and hypocrisy. How desperate is that?
2
I’ve been leaning toward canceling my subscription for a while now, and this is the last straw. Are we seriously supposed to consider Stephen Miller’s point of view on immigration? Everyone and everything involved in the trump administration is tainted with racism, bigotry, misogyny, corruption and self-dealing tackiness. Stephen Miller is abhorrent and his views are not representative of the America I love.
Good-bye New York Times.
2
Miller shouldn't be anywhere near serious policy debates. Douthat's prose pretty much buries the fact that this guy has great antipathy for non-European immigration. Why dress it up as anything else?
4
Because we live in a democracy. Whether you like it or not a significant number of Americans are against the mass immigration of unskilled workers. Miller represents those people.
To all the commentators who advocate for so-called “merit-based” criteria: How many of your immigrant ancestors were high-skilled individuals? How many were doctors? Lawyers? Engineers? Or were they humble poor folks? Refugees? People fleeing religious persecution? Wars? And what did they do once they arrived? Worked in the fields? In quarries? Mines? People with exceptional skills are important, for sure. But which skills? All those poor, illiterate immigrants who were your ancestors made something of themselves. Had they not, you would not be reading this newspaper.
Most people who rant and rave about merit-based immigration are either ignorant of American History, or are using merit as a fig leaf for bigotry. Remember that many who came here were viewed as undesirable by folks who arrived before them: people from Ireland, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Poland, China ...
8
Unskilled jobs are becoming a thing of the past! Taxis will be automated within a decade. Same with fast food workers. The list goes on. Those immigrants, today, would come to America with no skills applicable for the jobs available. That leads to social unrest and a massive drain on the Mario
1
Wait.
Its the "Not mine,but them!" attitudes.
Immigration “restrictionists” are counter factual zealots, full stop. Concern over undocumented migration is one thing. Trying to cut migration is suicide for our economy and motivated by the same bigotry aimed mindlessly at the Irish and Southern and Eastern European migrants.
Our native born population does not have enough children for a replacement population and hasn’t for decades. Miller and his ilk would inflict massive harm on our economy and society for no reason other than xenophobia.
Shun him. Negotiate with people who have different ideas but who know what facts are and who are motivated by the common good. That is not Miller.
2
You must be joking. First of all, to say Stephen Miller represents a valid or necessary point of view in these negotiations is untenable: he's a barely qualified interloper whose boss lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. That's like saying we need a KKK Grand Wizard in there too because he represents a point of view on immigration thats shared by some people (some "very fine people," if you're Trump/Miller/Kelly). Second, you're utterly failed to take into account his complete inability to actually negotiate. The President says one thing, then Miller and/or Kelly claw back everything he agreed to. That's not negotiating--that's childish, bullying behavior that repeatedly fails to move the ball forward.
6
It's your mistake to take the latest Trump/Miller offer seriously. It is a political ploy to hold the Dreamers' hostage to funding for Trump's stupid wall.
1
Further thought: Will all those skills-based immigrants replace skills-based Americans, who are already fighting over jobs that require certain skills?
1
The truly funny funny of all the screams of 'racist' to a skills based system is that the proof is there for anyone to see. The proposed templates are Australia and Canada. The people those two nations [both similar in many ways to the US] take in via skills are not in the main Caucasians. They are East and South Asians [both Australia and Canada] plus [for Canada] West Indians. There simply are not that many Caucasians looking to move between predominantly Caucasian countries who cannot already find a way to do so under existing laws. The places with the huge backlog of educated potential immigrants are India, China, Philippines etc. This is all public domain information folks.
2
“... increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics.“ Wow, just wow. How is this not just a more elliptical formulation of the same bigotry that Douthat pretends to disclaim?
4
There is no bigotry in this statement. Diversity is not some panacea that makes everything magically better. Having a homogenous culture is good for social stability. Importing those with entirely different values obviously shows distrust. Being against those who have no interest in assimilating is not bigotry. It’s logical.
When Douthat claims Trump's plan features "a somewhat lower immigration rate," the "somewhat" is doing so much work I'm genuinely surprised the Times didn't give it a co-byline.
Just to clarify: By eliminating future family visas, this proposal would cut future legal immigration in half.
1
Thomas Friedman once suggested in the NY Times that any foreigner who earned a PhD in the sciences should be offered US citizenship upon graduation. It's an interesting way to attract the best and brightest. The world is flat and only by successfully competing for talent will we grow.
3
I must agree. Fear and paranoia are mere concepts until Count Dracula actually manifests.
2
At a time when sustainability is a forefront concern, the collective human race seems to be trying to burn up the whole planet as fast as it can.
Uncas and Chingachgook led the way to where all immigrants must ultimately go.
2
Numbers, Ross, numbers show why we do NOT need a bizarre Miller or his policies:
1. Your own stats show Miller speaks for 1/3 of Americans who are "reductionists" and a few racists, also. A teeny number, 1 of 3, in a democracy where 2/3 is twice as big.
2, Liberals were, as you say, waiting for voter numbers to show the reality of our population, but GOP state gerrymandering and voter-registration blocking frauds cut those numbers down, as every study showed.
3. SCOTUS called corporations "people" and that made a huge number of new bucks from special PACs and billionaires float into GOP coffers, while deciding that spending limits violate the spirit of "free speech" in Amendment 1.
4. The EC and Congress simply don't care about the numbers that voted Dem, since HRC won them and the Dems won in Congressional fights, too.
So the numbers do not make strange-talker Miller and the Orange Oaf Trump represent anything more than a small minority on immigration and a shrinking minority on the GOP. Sorry, I think the game is over, despite the players who fixed the numbers. 700,000 DACA agree with me, by the way.
2
"But a bargain that actually reflects the shape of public opinion, not just the elite consensus, can only happen with someone like Stephen Miller at the table."
Bull. As you pointed out there are good arguments for implementing policies that Miller happens to favor. That being the case there is no reason for a known bigot to be present in order to present those ideas for legitimate reasons. Bigotry has no place at the table.
5
Your concluding paragraph invalidates this entire article. Stephen Miller does not reflect the shape of public opinion, not even close. At best, the same gun-toting, white supremacist, bot-believing 35% that is the Trump base, but in my heart I think it is closer to 20%
This is a person that has never held elective office, or even a real job in private sector in his adult life. After reading the esteemed writer Wayne Lapierre, he turned conservative and made his obsession about reversing immigration programs - the same ones that allowed his great/grandparents to the US in the 1900s. This is called hypocrisy; some may even say hate.
The notion that this bull-horn speaking, monotone boor reflects the shape of public opinion is laughable. Not only does it violate the moral role our country plays, but smart economists know we need to grow in excess of our stagnant birth rate in order to sustain these elusive +3% GDP targets everyone swears are just around the corner. Figure out how to bring people in, and make it work.
3
The chief cause of illegal immigration is the restriction of legal immigration. The only reason for such restriction is bigotry.
4
What need is there in American discourse for the divisive ranting of a misanthropic ultra-fringe demagogue. The assemblage you envision belongs not at a table but at a trough.
2
“...increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics”
Well, one could clearly blame the current occupant of the White House for a large piece of the blame-pie.
This article seems like an argument to justify a racist by looking at all of the ways he “balances out” the arguments on the middle and left. There should be no room for white nationalists at the table.
3
When discussing Stephen Miller, "restrictionist" is just a misleading name for white supremacist. What Mr. Douthat is arguing for, then, is that you can't have a deal until you include the white supremacists. At the moment he may be right, since they're in power. That's why we have to throw them out of office and keep them out.
3
Aren't you leaving out $25 billion toward an idiotic wall in this deal? And cutting immigration by 50%? And not giving any succor to refugee problems we, in some cases, helped create? Stephen Miller is despicable, perhaps we could have an alternative restrictionist sit in. What makes you think Stephen Miller even wants a deal on DACA?
1
A revolting comment, which I can best demonstrate by asking: so why not give ISIL and UKIP a seat at any peace talks between Israel and Palestine? Heck, they represent a lot of people.
Mr. Douthat, this country was founded in your "third, a third, and then this other third," divisiveness. And I heard this sort of talk-talk back about 1964...in guess what context?
It's a representative democracy, in which we elect people to lead, not parrot our stupidities.
2
This is a strange essay about an even stranger individual. Has Ross, or anyone else, actually read Miller's résumé and his pathetic credentials?
William Cohan had an illuminating piece last Summer in Vanity Fair titled, "How Stephen Miller Rode White Rage from Duke's Campus to Trump's White House".
Former Duke University senior vice president, John Burness told the News & Observer in February 2017, that while at Duke Miller "seemed to assume that if you were in disagreement with him, there was something malevolent or stupid about your thinking-incredibly intolerant."
Miller became a "committed conservative" after reading a book by the NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, and was an eager acolyte of white supremacist Richard Spencer, whom he later disavowed. After gigs including press secretary for Michele Bachman and Jeff Sessions' communications director, he was eventually hired in January 2016 as a senior policy advisor to the Trump Campaign, and presidential speechwriter.
The mediocrity evident in his writing is only worsened by his fabrications and mischaracterizations in his media appearances, many of which are repeated by his boss.
Why have so many important issues and policies been decided by people like Miller, Sessions, McConnell, Ryan, et. al., when they represent the views of only 33% of Americans? This has been increasingly evident over the past 40 years, until it has become tyranny of the majority by an extremist minority, abetted by the SCOTUS and Electoral College.
4
...and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics."
Then explain the vibrancy and relative cohesion of areas with most immogration mix: New York/Los Angeles/Bay Area/Chicago/Boston
I grew up in Canada which is much more lenient than USA though does not border Mexico. Merit based causes a problem of under employment for immigrants, as you often find Graduate level people at low level jobs. The profiles of very very few of foreign extraction who pay attention to extreme political messages were either well skilled/ambitious/welthy or their offspring. Working/poor are more likely to be grateful for a better existence that North America provides (or did)
And of course there is the problem that noone ever puts on the table.
The USCIS is another federal agency that is mismanaged and understaffed and totally ill equiped.
Here you go: called for an interview. Given strict instruction to bring 19 separate documents to the interview. 16 of those documents are already in the file from previous requests and requirements. Assemble the requested documents. Travel 90 miles to the interview. Interview lasts about 10 minutes. No request to produce any of the 19 documents. Not even asked if they are in your possession although interviewer must see stuffed briefcase ! Thank you very much.
I find it mildly amusing that advocates of merit-based immigration don't realize the implication of they are saying. Essentially they are saying "Americans are too stupid" to have jobs requiring education and knowledge, so we need smart immigrants to fill such jobs.
1
I like how that we are the MOST diverse nation in the world. We have the highest proportion of foreign born people in the history of this nation. The liberals desire an open border with a nation whose prevailing wage is 5 times less than us, and open borders in a world where a large proportion of its people live on less than $2 per day.
What is going to be the effect of open borders on the 70% of Americans who don't have college degrees? Because these people are going to bear the brunt of any effect millions of non-english speaking people with zero skills and no education. Not the educated elite that looks down at that 70% and calls them hate filled bigots when all they really are worried about is wage stagnation and losing jobs and competitiveness.
The liberals who comment on this page and call people who want laws about immigration (like every other nation in the world) won't be the people that have to worry about any effect these immigrants will have. These liberals can just pack up and move to Europe to make money, or even just stay at home and get clients in China on their computers. The only thing they will notice is that their lawn trimmers and janitors won't need workers comp and will continue to be cheap and easy to get at the local Home Depot parking.
Meanwhile, the average American with a high school education and a desire to stay near family won't be able to just pack up and move to Doha. They have to deal with immigration, and should have a voice.
2
And the invasion of the body snatchers continues. Coming soon to this space - tributes to our Great Leader.
2
I disagree. You can say that a civil rights agreement has to have the KKK at the table or they won't accept the outcome. Any reasonable outcome is one the KKK won't accept.
An immigration deal has to have:
1. A DACA formalization and approval.
Almost 9-out-of-10 Americans see that children brought into the US broke no laws themselves, and having lived essentially their entire lives here, the right thing to do is to allow them to stay and work, and to have a path to becoming US citizens. That has overwhelming approval. There are some 1-2 million kids in this category and it just is too easy and too right.
2. End the visa lottery.
It just is a ridiculous notion that when the US has more applicants for immigration than visa's granted that we reserve some for a random process, rather than using a selection criteria.
3. Increased Mexican border security and better internal law enforcement.
Illegal immigration has to be effectively stopped. The "wall" is a stupid idea. but border roads, patrols, fences, and electronic surveillance all should be improved. Better compliance with work rules has to be enforced.
4. Arrive at a number of total immigrants per year, and a priority of selection.
This is the hardest. I like "family reunification" as a high priority. Employment HAS to be considered.
5. Refugee exceptions.
Americans should be compassionate with refugees. More than we are now.
Miller is part of the 1-in-10 Americans that things DACA is wrong.
3
When you substitute "restrictionist" for racist, bigot, white nationalist and other, more accurate, descriptors you can almost make this flim-flam argument seem plausible. There is quite a lot of willful ignorance in this argument from RD. I would just point out that hard work is a skill set also. With nearly full employment in this economy there are no native jobs to be stolen. Miller has no constructive role to play in these negotiation. He is merely the snake-charmer to Trump's basest instincts.
1
Mr Douthat you seem to be an intelligent man, polite, reserved, able to dissect complexity. I wonder how your predecessors, Saphire and Buckley would manage punditry in todays environment. Trump is not a secret racist- he is crass and in your face about it and he has been enabled by many. Some sort of sensible immigration policy, like a sensible budget, is essential to good government- which we do not have right now. Skills based immigration- is ridiculous as is race based immigration, as we have no coherent policy
A weird, unbalanced man, not chosen by the people. Why is he empowered to steer a disinterested president into making un-American decisions?
2
Face it. The concern about S. Miller's presence is that POTUS is soft minded, not that he represents a segment of our citizens.
This is an extremely intelligent, carefully written, well articulated statement of the following: "There are a lot of bigots. Pander to them." One can make that case. (It may be a "red line" for me, but nobody made me Arbiter-in-Chief.) But it is better made if it is made frankly -- that is, posed openly, not drowning in euphemistic smoke and mrrors.
172
I always believed we ought to have experts at the negotiating table who have a command of the facts. If the president wants to send this uninformed bigot to the table, so be it. Perhaps no one is better suited to reflect the president's feelings than Miller. Since no one in the White House ever seems to have facts supporting their positions, Miller should pull up a chair.
Once he has finished sneering at everyone, dismiss him and then let rational people get down to business.
3
When Stephen Miller's gig is up, we don't want him to return to California. He's not welcome here.
3
As an immigration historian, it is obvious that Miller wants to return to the 1924 Immigration Act that was designed to restrict immigration from Asia (which included the Middle East,) and Eastern and Southern Europe (meaning Catholics and Jews.) This bill was in effect until 1965 (the actually went into effect in 1968) when national quotas were dropped and the focus was put on skills and family reunification. Miller, a college friend of Richard Spencer, is clearly a White Supremacist who should not be at the table whispering in Trump's ear, as we know that Trump himself has no idea about American history or values. Yes, we do need immigration reform, but we need policies crafted by people with brains and compassion, not some 30-something whose world view seems shaped primarily by white nationalism.
4
Overall, there is no question: high immigration is a sign of how well the US is doing. We should really be pleased that people want to live here .
Immigration keeps the culture and the economy booming, it makes life interesting. Deportations are a miserable exercise in futility. They cost the country too much, and they breed resentment.
And we don’t just need tech entrepeneurs! All types of people, including the modest and the poor, make this country what it is.
So why don’t we annex Mexico. The border will be much smaller, so it will be much easier to build a wall. Mexico might even pay for it. Law enforcement will improve, and illegal immigration will slow to a trickle.
1
Every now and again, Ross, there's a faint hint of "What would Jesus do?" that seems to nudge your views..... I don't really know the answer to that question in most cases.... but it's pretty clear that it doesn't apply to T-Rex, nor to your thinking today.
3
The immigration "crisis" is being used a scapegoat for failing captalism and the concomitant economic insecurity. There is no immigration reform that will satiy the radical right.
1
Stephen Miller has shown himself to be virulently anti-immigrant and anti-Latino. Should the Democratic Party want him to have a seat at the table, when Latinos make up a large part of their base? Moreover, the composition of the U.S. population is changing. In 6 or 7 years, Latinos and other minorities will comprise a majority of voters in the country.
Why should Democrats bargain with the devil? Latino voters should help Democrats flip the states of Florida, Texas, and Arizona in the next election.
Then Miller, Trump, Arpaio, and Kelly will be flotsam and jetsam as the waves roll over them.
4
No compromise involving a path to citizenship can pass the House. Douthat knows that.
But, when Stephen Miller is at the table, you are also inviting a liar, a racist, a conspiracy theorist, an absolutist regarding his values as opposed to anyone else's values and a potentially dangerous man who, once given a place at the table, would most likely be disruptive, militant, and ultimately destructive. Why should we all suffer that?
4
:...with no promise of the new E-Verify enforcements conservatives often seek...'
That's because employers, mostly Republican, drive illegal immigration and they don't want it to stop. When my state passed a show-me-your-papers law after based on Arizona's a few years back, the press only learned a couple of months later that the state Farm Bureau lobbying organization carved out exemptions for farm workers, nursery/landscaping workers and domestics. Why bother? Other than to let Republican legislators posture...
There was some road construction near me about 12 years ago. In the first phase, virtually the entire road crew was Hispanic. Then, the state adopted E-Verify after libertarian Gov. Mark Sanford left office; libertarians don't like anyone telling business how to do anything. In the next phase, the road crew was almost totally black.
Don't know if a racist like Miller is needed at the table, but taking the seat away from the Chamber of Commerce might really help American workers.
2
There is so, so much wrong with this Douthat post that I don't know where to begin.
The essence of the piece, I think, is that Miller, in Douthat's mind, is legitimate and represents real people and therefore deserves/demands a seat at the negotiating table.
If Pres. Lincoln's position on slavery was analogous to Douthat's view of this matter...we'd still have slavery in this country!
Try harder.
2
I love these comments. They show the massive chasm between liberals’ wishes on mass immigration, and reality about what the public wants.
Here’s the tell. People who actually have skin in the game - Democratic Senators - folded after a mere 48 hours in the face of having to defend their open borders, pro-amnesty positions. This tells us all we need to know about where most of America stands on the issue.
So let the fantasists out there who think a “true” majority wants amnesty for 2 million illegals with no strings attached, and that a “true” majority is opposed to a fence and stronger border security, keep saying it.
Meanwhile, their own party is going to keep running away from it, keep getting shellacked at the polls for it, keep losing elections because of it, and keep backing down when they do make futile, short lived attempts to stand for amnesty and open borders. Those Democratic Senators know something their myopic base doesn’t - that open borders and amnesty are NOT what a majority, or even a third, of what we want. Miller’s views are far more in line with what the majority wants.
1
I’m reminded that a room full of monkeys in a room full of typewriters will eventually produce the great American novel, or in this case a useful immigration plan.
If I might make a Modest Proposal maybe we can have the migration policy that brought most of the Irish here in the late 1840s.
For those that forget we needed immigrants for our rapidly growing industrial cities and nobody wanted to live in the filth and squalor. The British Parliament voted not to feed the potato eating hovel dwellers of Ireland as they added nothing to the Irish economy and they deprived land owners of pasture and crop land in Ireland's food export economy.
The landowners sent their thugs in to burn the hovels and the hovel dwellers were sent to Ireland's ports where they were knocked unconscious and loaded on to the ships and carted off to places like America. The thugs were paid a bounty for each deportee they could get on board and receiving countries often paid for the unskilled labour it needed for its cities.
Since people are just another economic commodity whose value fluctuates with supply and demand maybe it is time we take a lesson from Europe and simply pay other countries for the people whose skills we need and pay other countries to take away those who do not contribute to our economy.
I cannot really take credit for this proposal as it was The Economist back in the 1840s who beseeched the British Parliament not to feed the Irish peasants who were starving and take economic advantage to the fortuitous potato blight.
2
"... his critics say he just wants to keep America as white as possible ...".
And it seems pretty clear that the Democrats are trying to make America as brown as possible by crafting an open borders policy in an attempt to minoritize the white majority. It's a dangerous game they're playing, that could lead to the break-up of the country or a civil war.
Talk about treason. What the Democrats are doing is essentially trying to minoritize the majority in an attempt to gain permanent political power. It's tantamount to a coup.
1
Ross, you've lived on the east coast too long...eating our produce on the cheap.You seem to favor a "skills-based recruitment".Just how do you evaluate a potential immigrants ability to pick produce or clean hotel rooms or work as a clerk at 7-11 stores for that matter? Let's hear it!As a true elitist you think that only high tech workers are valuable to this country economy.
So California is "stratified by race? What do you think has happened in the mid west and southern US? They are more "stratified by race" than California and with their scant populations controlling the US senate and House, they decide where the funding for the biggest 10 states .which fund their folly and pay for it,will go.I guess for you, being stratified by the right race(white?) is OK.
1
It makes this 70 year old white male feel deeply depressed to realize that there is some truth to what Mr. Douthat is arguing. There has always been a virulent strain of white supremacy in US political life -- we were founded as a slave-holders' republic -- but for most of my adult life, politicians realized that they had to speak to white supremacists in code, what has become known as dog whistles. But Mr. Douthat is correct: today's Republican Party has a racist as president, one of whose chief advisors is an admitted white supremacist, and so any deal struck on immigration must be made in compromise with open -- proud -- racists. How did we get here? How sad. God forgive us.
2
It really isn't necessary to remind us how negotiation works, Ross. We know!!! It's our elected officials who've forgotten! You are missing the point. The biggest reason they can't generate a coherent immigration policy is the complexity of the issue combined with the self-nterest/self-preservatiion of those involved. Re-election trumps all. And, let's not forget the significant portion of US industries that rely on undocumented immigrant labor.
Steven Miller is an obnoxious person, never mind his blatant racism. He annoys republicans as much as he does democrats! You just don't include people like that in a REAL negotiation! Because of his racism AND because of the way he behaves. Listen to him for a while and you will see how twisted his thinking is. He's NOT needed anywhere in our government. Especially not anywhere you want to get something done.
Your idea that Miller should be at the table is very much in keeping with the status quo in government. Perhaps our elected officials, in particular republicans, should actually listen to all the factions in their electorate instead of their donors. The so-called tax bill is proof that they can listen. They're just listening to/working for the wealthy.
What needs to happen (one many issues) is to divide all 535 of them into working groups, hire facilitators and force them to generate a SWOT analysis. They clearly aren't able to handle a vast array of important issues, let alone something as complex as immigration!
The Wall. Miller and Trump and Bannon and The Wall.
How can any of the “debate” be rationalized when one of the main tenets of this administration’s policy on immigration is as ridiculous as The Wall.
You have to play the game with the cards you've been dealt.
For fifty years i have been on the left, now i feel nauseous.
Today's Democratic Party is not my dad's working man's party.
Growing up on Staten Island the population was 190,000, now it is 500,000
They just raised the Bayonne Bridge to accommodate job stealing super tankers.
Look out the window, bog down on our highways, examine our overtaxed infrastructure, our medical and education systems.
Unless you have an agenda any sane person would say turn off the bubble machine.
American fools dominated by our so called protectors, so called educators,
abused by big business, suffocating under the big foot of our corrupt legal system, seem more concerned with sexuality than reality.
Stop the wars, bring home the troops and rebuild America.
1
What exactly are the stresses placed on the body politic by immigration? As noted by other commenters, unemployment rates are extremely low, and the contributions of immigrants to the economy are well-known. While it is fair for a country to place some conditions on who can immigrate, to prohibit entire groups - which is what policy wizard Stephen Miller has been trying to do from Day 1 of this presidency - is just plain bigotry. Sorry, bigots - America cannot - and should not want to - return to some mythical all-white past.
I find it interesting that the strongest voices against immigration come from places with the fewest immigrants... places like Iowa (Steve King!) and Idaho. Places that actually contain large immigrant populations... most cities... are generally ok with it. Why is that, Mr Douhat?
1
Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon were two peas in a pod. The only reason Bannon got fired is because he said in far more public ways (see the Michael Wolff book) what Miller says more privately.
1
Ross, we had a bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed in the Senate in 2013, 68-32. John Boehner wouldn't bring it up in the House for a vote, because he knew it had enough Republican and Democratic votes to pass easily.
Another point, Miller is an ignorant racist and an adviser, not an elected official, we have no obligation to listen to anything he says. The man is insane, just listen to that interview with Jake Tapper from last week.
Ross, we know you’re just trying to egg us on. We know you know that Stephen Miller is a dangerous actor who should not be taken seriously. Any blood Miller spills though, is on DT’s hands. To your credit, you’ve stirred the pot! Well done. Now, to your main and ongoing point, let’s get rid of the dysfunctional stage director before any of his many bad actors create a catastrophe.
It is only in the USA that likes Trump and Miller would have "leadership" roles.
"The worse, the better" by Lenin
1
First of all, those "who have been displaced" who has? Most of those who struggle with earning a living live in red states where jobs are few, the opioid crisis is taking a toll and they are stuck in some tiny town! This is not the fault of immigrants or past immigration policies! If some white midwestern or southern Americans struggle to make a living they need to ask themselves why they dropped out of high school or refuse to move to other states where jobs are plentiful! Stop blaming the immigrants!
Secondly, who is Stephen Miller? What experience does he have other than his obvious loathing of immigrants, especially brown ones!
If those who oppose to immigration from all countries and all needed, desperate people think the refugee crisis is bad, what until Island nations begin to flood because of rising seas!
Immigrants legal and illegal are the very fabric of our nation, they do eventually assimilate. Without undocumented workers, the produce on American farms will rot! Perhaps that's what needs to happen to wake people up!
You seem to be blind to the fact that Stephen Miller never compromises with anyone he has the slightest disagreement with. No rational immigration - border legislation will be negotiated as long as Miller is the President’s chief immigration adviser. Just ask Senators Graham and Durbin.
1
After appreciating the many articles you have written in the last year about the destructive nature of Trump’s policies, i cannot believe you actually slid so far backwards on the sensitive policy of immigration reform. Everything that has come out of Trump, Miller, and Kelly has been tinged, if not blatantly racist. Is this the America you want, Ross? Sensible immigration policy is one thing; saying that we should follow a path of racism and the ever increasing path of becoming a compassionless society is another. Its up to people like you to stand up for what is right, decent, moral and sensible. Come back, Ross, we need you!
1
I often read Douthat's column trying to squeeze some good out of it. Usually, I can get some tiny benefit. But this one hits a new low. I think Stephen M and Kellyanne C should appear in the professional wrestling ring with Trump himself as Barker, exciting the crowds and clowns before and between rounds. Perhaps Douthat could serve as referee.
I'm not for open borders but Miller is so strident about his racist views that it is hard to see how having him at a negotiating table would be a help. He doesn't even belong in government.
Ross always wants the rest of us to go along with the vilest people to prove that we are tolerant. That's not what that kind of collaboration proves....it proves that we are weak, clueless and afraid. The president can send someone who can make a reasoned argument about merit based immigration along the Canadian lines without sending a man who has lectured us that the president can not be questioned. You cannot have a reasoned discussion with a man with views like that!
17
I believe that the founders envisioned a homogeneous America, not a fractious society. Having said this, let me relate an experience I had this morning.
I was filling a working container through a funnel with olive oil from a larger container. The funnel would fill and I would stop pouring until the funnel was clear. If I poured too fast the funnel would overflow causing a mess.
The obvious point is that we must allow for assimilation to take place before over taxing our system. We need to control the flow, first determining our goals.
4
The basic problem is that on many issues, including immigration, Administration trends are towards supporting the conservative base, roughly 35% of the voters. So Miller's position supports 35% of the voters. In some cases, since Miller is one of the primary contributors to Trump's speeches and policy input on White House press releases, it looks more like Miller with 100% support from John Kelly are 100% of the negotiating team. As long as he gets his wall and support for his fundamental bigotry, Trump doesn't keep track of the rest of the details.
This lopsided bigotry bears no resemblance to the thoughtful discussion presented in Mr. Douthat's column.
2
But the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform hasn't been the result of not giving restrictionists a "seat at the table" but rather the insistence in the GOP house on applying the Hastert rule. Reform measures have passed the Senate twice and would have passed the House if put to a vote.
4
The fact that Mr. Douthat weaves a rationale for Stephen Miller's participation in the development of any policy is disgusting, frightening, and seems to reveal his complicity with the nefarious nature of this sad man. Perhaps Ross hasn't heard the many frightening comments made by Miler, but I think not. Anyone who supports Miller is on the wrong side of history. Miller will forever be a stain on our nation's reputation, and those who support his presence in the White House are to blame.
9
"...and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." What a wildly dubious claim.
2
I have no problem with leaders ignoring a segment of public opinion when said opinions are driven by racism. A seat at the table for Miller is tacit acceptance of white European supremacy as a legitimate political stance.
3
Let's be real. Change in legal immigration and more money to resist illegal immigration won't undo the reality: hundreds of millions of poor people desperate to get out of dangerous countries. Distance makes Europe the preferred destination for most of them, but there are plenty of such people near or nearly near the USA. No wall will keep all of them out.
This totally ignores the most egregious aspects of the Trump/Miller proposal, which is the end of family preference for immigration. Traditionally, one member of a family immigrates, establishes themselves and then begins to reconstruct their family in their new home. The Trump/Miller faction has branded this "chain migration" and proposes to end it thereby eliminating most of the incentives to come here. After all, who would abandon their wife , children and parents forever in order to make more money? We have al=ways been a nation that values family. The current proposal is anti-family and frankly anti-American.
4
The current proposal keeps the preference for spouses and children. It ends the current policy of bringing your whole extended family including your 3rd cousin twice removed who you've never met.
1
Great article. Based on Trump's proposal for a path to full citizenship we'll now see if the Democrats in Congress really care about these nearly 2 million individuals they call Dreamers, or if they've simply been using them as political props. The Democrats will make a huge political mistake if they don't accept Trump's latest offer, with no more than minor tweaks to soften the aspects they don't like. While the vast majority of Americans want to help the Dreamers with permanent residency, they don't give a darn about retaining current chain migration and diversity lottery policy. The silent majority also wants enhanced border security. Trump citizenship move may be the right thing to do, but it was also a stroke of political genius.
4
Creating a monument to bigotry is in no way border security.
Reducing immigration by 50% is not a minor "sticking point."
Doing away with family reunification will have far-reaching problems.
At the core of all of these policies is engineering immigration to exclude all but white immigrants, who speak english, look like the population pushing for the changes, and are "christian."
A huge issue here is the character of the persons involved (gosh, remember when “character” was something conservatives would crow about? Good times.). I might be able to imagine various and even painful compromises among reasonable and honest people, but the very public statements by Miller, Trump, et al, let us know without ambiguity that they are anything but trustworthy.
Perhaps, to extend Mr. Douthat’s reasoning, 1/3 of the country is dishonest and immoral and deserve a dishonest and immoral seat at the table. Oh, wait, they already have that.
3
An immigration policy that looks more like Canada’s skill based makes sense to me. I also believe family needs to be more narrowly defined to immediate members; not grandparents, nephews, nieces and aunts. The Pew Report is interesting in many respects and immigrants’ commitment to hard work superior to that of generations long Americans is borne out where I live. The Republicans don’t want Latinos because the tend to vote for Democrats. Plain and simple.
1
Republicans don't want welfare receipients because they tend to vote for Democrats. The Democrats don't want and end to the status quo because once they no longer have illegal immigration to use as a wedge issue, family oriented, religious, small business owning Latinos are likely to feel more at home in the GOP
1
Gini coefficient measures income inequality, the author says California's Gini coefficient is now the same as Honduras. Is he trying to say that is bad? The question is how does it compare to the rest of the US where concentration of wealth is supposedly increasing.
2
Part of the problem is each side sees each deal as the end-of-the-issue.
In X years, the current administrator will be gone. There were be new Congressional elections.
Everything we do is built on sand. Make the best deal you can today. In 2 years or 4 or.... re-negotiate.
There is no "winning" or "winner-take-all." Take the long view.
1
My own thinking tends in a similar direction. The repeated compulsive failure of iImmigration reform has exposed the government as utterly incompetent. The failure to enact new immigration law has damaged the country in a very bad way. Make the best deal possible now. Save the dreamers. Stabilize policy. Move toward more enforceable law. Save the families, if you can. If not. come back stronger for the next round and fight and win. Keeping families in tact will be something most Americans will support.
I was taught in school as I put my hand to my heart a recited the pledge that we were different because we allowed the hungry huddled masses to our land. We didn't give them tests to see if they would benefit use immediately, could speak English and invent some shiny gadget. No we were great because we saw the potential in everyone no matter their potential bank account. But that is a lie, always has been as we built this country stealing land, committing genocide and enslaving a race of people. However, in spite of this we were still opposed to merit based immigration. If we allow Stephen Miller's ideas of merit based immigration to pass then we no longer are a shining beacon granting hope for a better life. We will allow the darkest part of humanity to win, it will allow the parts of our history back into mainstream. If this idea that only those we deem helpful in then we should tear down the statue of liberty and replace it with a wall.
2
I'm not clear on why Mr. Douthat included sources for his claims. He says that the percentage of our population that is foreign-born is "near a record high" but the Pew data says that we are at about 24% vs. 34% at the beginning of the 20th century and our economy and democracy were greatly enhanced by these immigrants. He also uses education data to support increased stratification by race in California ("the model for a high-immigration future") but the data says that all races, white non-Hispanic included) underperform the national levels. What he does get right is that illegal immigration has been falling and started falling during the eight-year Obama presidency. Trump/Miller continue to race-bait and insist that they are saving us. This paper is supposed to give clear-eyed analysis of the real situation.
4
We are facing a situation where a bargain will have to be made on our varied immigration issues and that means two sides will have to argue and decide on a satisfactory compromise. The concern I have is "the necessity of Stephen Miller" being part of that. His anti-immigration stance is too colored with nativism, dare I say racism. In short he is a despicable character. A compromise with his kind will be short lived because he embodies hate.
1
Even if we assume that a full one-third of the American public is xeonphobic, they have representatives in the House, and they are not entitled to have their minority view given extra weight by Stephen Miller, who was not elected by anyone.
3
Previous waves of immigrants, including my unwanted Irish predecessors, Italians, eastern Europeans and others all made it because they could then do the necessary work of the country which was farming and labor. Times have changed and so have our occupational needs. Merit based immigration is now the only kind that makes sense.
5
Democrats are now in the minority and they should work on getting what they can until they are back in power. Miller and Trump are bigots. It is not clear who the segregationists of another era were necessary for the civil rights movement.
1
The problem with this whole subject is that the American people rarely get hard facts and cold truths from either party. On one hand, the Democrats say illegal immigrants grow the economy, and they contribute to society. On the flip side, the populist wing of the GOP denigrates these people, saying they exact too much of a toll on the social welfare system, and that they refuse to assimilate and, thus, abide by the American social contract. The truth has to be somewhere in between. Yes, illegal immigrants do contribute to the economy, and they ease the problem of falling birth rates in this country. But they do burden social welfare systems, because so many bring over aged relatives or their parents who haven't contributed to SS or Medicare. I've met several immigrants who have done this. Here's my idea: grant protection to the dreamers but don't let them sponsor their parents. Don't deport people, except for criminals, but bolster border security. Either scrap chain migration altogether or reduce it significantly, and implement more of a skills-based criteria for accepting new people. I propose a fair deal that maintains immigration but doesn't drive down low-skilled workers' wages, and protects our country from being overwhelmed.
4
1. Make a robust employment identification system (maybe e-verify or something better) with consistent punishments to employers who violate the system and hire illegal immigrants.
2. Identify the number of legal immigrants desired into the US consistent with population goals, and adhere to that number. Argue if you want over where immigrants should come from, but stick to the agreed upon number.
Problem Solved.
2
No table is enhanced by the presence of Stephen Miller nor, as an alternative, David Duke.
2
Mr Douthat’s suggestion that immigrants may be taking jobs Americans could do:
Mr. Douthat apparently doesn’t know that according to at least the Washington Post, many businesses are struggling to find workers to do landscaping, construction and shelf-stocking. Low-paying? Yes. But immigrants are Not taking jobs away from Americans. Clearly there are Americans who simply don’t want these jobs, Mr. Douthat.
2
Reading Douthat's column was much like listening to any statement from Donald Trump: There is so much crazy offered with so little justification that I don't know where to start. Yet this requires a reply.
Negotiating with terrorists is a fools errand and Steven Miller is a terrorist. Mentor to white supremacist Richard Spencer, Miller is about racism and hate. Whether there is a faction of Americans who share his views is not the key issue. Rather, the key is to move forward with the promise of America.
That will take courage on the part of recalcitrant legislators, who cower before opinion polls in their districts. That is to say, we need leaders, not followers. We need people who put country before their own self-serving interests.
Which leaves Steven Miller off the invitee list for immigration talks.
4
The inconsistencies in rightists’ arguments raise suspicions about their motives and principles.
Take “family reunification and chain migration.” Their politically correct argument against these programs seems to be that allowing in one “undeserving” soul might be manageable, but too many, however defined, will create a burden on taxpayers and social systems and raise crime rates.
Yet, extended families are exactly what is needed most to provide individuals with non-public safety nets that discourage crime and foster resiliency.
Arguments against family reunification programs are anti-family, illogical, and not based in fact. Racism, bigotry, and a fear of open competition are the real principles behind them. How ironic that such reasoning is espoused by the supposedly pro-family, small-government, and free-market conservatives.
1
Stephen Miller, 32 years of age, strikes me as the Kindergarten child of whom his teacher would have written: "Does not play well with others".
The comment still applies.
As it still does to Donald J.Trump, now 71 years old.
How do you "forge a deal" with such personalities?
4
The US has an aging populace with many people going onto Social Security. It is a fact that immigration is the place to find replacement workers. They will not be taking jobs but augmenting the growth in the economy.
6
Out of all the unsupported claims this article makes, I think the most gratuitous is the false equivalence between Steven Miller's view and one-third of the American population. Even if we take the claim at face value that one-third of Americans believe that immigration rates are too high, that doesn't mean they have views that are accurately represented by Miller. Such a claim is not supported at all except in a very vague and general way, and to imply that this group would find their views adequately represented by Miller is dangerous in that it takes what is probably a radical viewpoint and attempts to normalize it through faulty logic.
68
I would add that it's not clear if that 1/3 is thinking of illegal immigration when they express this viewpoint.
This is all very curious indeed. Here we are parsing words such as "restrictionist", when the fact of the matter is this country is The Red Man's ground. Also it was built primarily on the backs of free Black labor, which was integral to the development of the Capitalist system.
No amount of justification and specious rhetoric can change these facts.
Therefore, when an admitted White Supremacist such as Miller seeks to "restrict" immigration of people of color to this country, there is one and ONLY one conclusion to draw. That goes double for those who enable, justify, and excuse such a person seated at the table.
49
Why an increase in skilled workers? Are there too few? Or, is this the way to lower wages for all skilled workers?
22
Siouxiep,
I think it's a backdoor way to continue the destruction and defunding of the public schools and to further the dumbing down of American voters; keep the electorate dumb as bunnies and get the educated workers from abroad. This is, of course, a self feeding negative feedback loop to the bottom, but that has never stopped the GOP before.
2
It's the latter. See, as just one example, Disney laying off 250 IT workers and forcing them to train lower paid replacement workers brought in from India. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-t...
Interesting picture of half a Miller. One side you see the other side of Miller you don't. Wouldn't trust this man, but the proposal you mention Ross is one to be seriously considered and debated.
3
But the problem here does not lie so much in MIller's policy stances. I don't like them even a little, but decent people can disagree on how many immigrants should come into the country, and their skill levels. The problem is with Miller himself. Like most of the people surrounding Don-Don, Miller is a reprehensible human being. He's a creep. He's been a bigot since high school. His motives are perverted, and he cannot be trusted. Therefore, it is not possible to negotiate with him, nor with Don-Don, for the same reasons. They have to go.
24
Again this is simply about miller's and the admin's insistence on alternative facts. If Tapper or any other interviewer could get a word in edgewise, they would challenge miller on his irrational excuses of fears of crime, assimilation issues or stagnating wages. Research shows especially immigrants don't commit more crime than native born. And for wages, please. Even the "working class whites" who elected the T word know their bosses have more but share less.
13
Negotiate with Stephen Miller. Hmmmm.
I came to the realization years ago that my head feels so much better when I stop banging it against a brick wall. I have no desire to start up again with a different brick wall.
26
What if New Haven County were to made a haven for international refugees?
Some might object to "cultural imperialism," that the good people of Guilford and Clinton and Westbrook and Old Saybrook would loose their unique identity. But Madison would surely retain its place as Mecca of the northeastern suburbs.
A partial but important solution to the world's refugee crisis may be hiding in plain sight just off Exit 60 on US I-95.
1
Here's my thought for what it's worth, deport Miller, Sessions, Bannon et al, make them struggle and beg to get back in hold them in limbo and when we do relent to allow them in make them take menial jobs and beg to stay, let them live on the edge. I don't care where they are sent, some remote island without electricity or food sources. Just get them out of my country, they don't belong here. Yeah I know they are citizens, a fact which curdles my cream, but look at it this way, by the time tRump destroys our country and it's foundations, legal and otherwise, it would not matter that they were born here, it would be irrelevant. Maybe by then they would also be irrelevant. I can only hope. Put tRump on that boat too.
15
Various articles reporting on the rise of Mr. Miller reference a friendship he once had with fellow high school student, which he subsequently ended, in (large?) part because of that person’s Hispanic heritage. And so, Mr. Douthat wants a xenophobe to be involved in regulating immigration? Then why not invite Richard Spencer along, for while he and Mr. Miller may differ in their approach, they have the same goal, which, in the words of Mr. Spencer is, “to . . . put . . . a break on all immigration, particularly non-European immigration . . ..” That’s exactly what Mr. Miller strives after when he talks about instituting a point-based immigration system, drastically limiting legal immigration, and ending the visa lottery program. And when Mr. Douthat writes, “. . . increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics”, one must ask, “Distrust among who?” The answer, of course, is a certain section of White America. Ever seen hordes of people of color among those protesting (il)legal immigration? Which brings us right back to Mr. Spencer’s, and, presumably, Mr. Miller’s point. Obviously, the US reserves the right to determine who it lets into its borders and how, but let’s not have an upstart, and, above all, out-and-out xenophobe speak for the 33% of Americans identified by Mr. Douthat who want to reduce immigration.
12
Most immigrants who come to the United States have been people of low or no skills. Using my immediate family as an example: my grandparents worked hard to assimilate, just as immigrants do today. The first generation born here (parents generation) all attended universities and most completed post-graduate education (4/5). Of my generation (including first cousins), 5/8 have professional or academic degrees. Of the others: 2 are active in the arts; the third is an entrepeneurial computer programmer. What I wish to emphasize is the that the people who immigrated came from shitholes and had few skills. That they were able to prosper for the benefit of their families and the nation and were not unusual in this is what made America great - limiting its opportunity is both wrong-headed and short-sighted.
The explicit racism of the present government weakens the nation, both present and future. Some in the executive may be very good people (rather like the KKK), but it's just a hunch since we have no evidence to support the claim.
26
Most of the undocumented are from cultures that value large families over education. A longitudinal study published by Telles and Ortiz, when they were sociology professors at UCLA, found that the first generation of Mexican immigrants, who could attend school here, went to school for more years than their parents had, back in Mexico, but that many in the succeeding generations attended for fewer years than that first generation.
What is more, when your grandparents came, there was still high demand for unskilled and low skilled labor. Now we have tens of thousands of American citizens who need such jobs, but cannot find them. With the possible exception of the ones who work in agriculture, undocumented workers are displacing American citizens (of all races).
In an age of information and hi tech, the undocumented are competing for a dwindling number of low and unskilled jobs with our own citizens, and too many of the undocumented do not emphasizing the value of education to their own children. Rather than helping the country, most are proving to be a long-term burden.
Stephen Miller has no qualifications to support his place in presidential discussions regarding immigration. If he belongs at the table with Trump, then so does Richard Spencer, the white supremacist, who Miller palled around with when they were both at Duke University. Spencer has claimed to have mentored Miller, something Miller disputes, but nonetheless, that association alone should preclude his participation in immigration matters.
19
Douthat writes - "But a bargain that actually reflects the shape of public opinion, not just the elite consensus, can only happen with someone like Stephen Miller at the table" ..
Wrong .. nearly 9 out of 10 Americans support DACA, and a majority oppose "the Wall". That's the shape of public opinion ... Miller and his ilk have no place at the table.
19
Your proposal to keep Miller at the negotiation table on immigration is akin to having a David Duke at the table on negotiations for the Civil Rights Act. Seriously?
25
When the history of this time is written, there will be a special place for the reasonable sounding conservatives like Ross Douthat and David Brooks who have each day made the extremity and cynicism of the modern GOP nearly palatable until little by little what should be outrageous becomes mainstream. When we ask how Donald Trump was able to become President after someone who (no matter what you thought of his politics) was thoughtful, intelligent, inclined to compromise and thoroughly decent, look not only to backlash and racism and anger, look to these temperate conservatives who, day after day, find ways to make the contemptible sound reasonable and in the process provide cover for voters who otherwise might not soil themselves.
27
There is no imaginable scenario where Stephen Miller should be necessary for anything.
26
I guess it’s finally happened. Miller’s bigotry has entered the mainstream and has been normalized enough for moderates to embrace.
Sad.
33
I'm sorry, Mr. Douthat, but the day I recognize a White Nationalist as an instigator on any level of national social policy I may have to live by will be the day my soul died.
23
The Republicans are caught between the two main groups within their ranks. On the one hand are the working class folks who are wary of immigrants taking their jobs and lowering wages. On the other hand are the big business corporatists who see immigrant-driven lower wages as a major victory and have no real interest in lowering immigration rates. Good luck truly resolving this my Republican friends. What I expect is more sleight of hand to try and convince the working class voter that the Republicans are rally trying to reduce immigration.
2
" increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." Diversity has always been a signal American strength, and it still is. Look at our most vibrant, most successful cities ... Seattle, New York, San Francisco,Tucson, Houston, Portland, Miami: they are melting pots where diversity is, for the most part, happily accepted---even encouraged. I suspect it is distrusted generally only in those parts of the country where there is a strong holdover of racial animus, which most people in this century have recognized as baseless and wrong.
8
Mr. Miller should not have a place at the table. Steamrolled or not, his beliefs generate hatred, violence and intolerance for others. As the courts have shown, his proposals are not in keeping with the Constitution and basic human decency. He should be ostracized.
10
Wasn't it Miller who inserted the phrase "American carnage" into Trump's dystopian Inauguration address? I believe it was.
If looks help shape the man, Miller's brooding arrogance reflects a person who has half-baked, college-generated policy ideas. His only real previous job was working for then-Senator Jeff Sessions, never known to have an idea that even came close to the 20th Century.
Miller has the Administration's point person on immigration is like putting Scott Pruitt in charge of environmental policy. Oh, wait!
15
“...increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics.”
Mr. Douthat betrays his prejudices in this quote here. Diversity does no discord, does no distrust or animosity. It is racism, bigotry, and xenophobia that sow distrust, and these are Mr. Miller’s and Mr. Trump’s tools in trade. Diversity has been continuously proven to be a boon to economies, and has been shown to expand our creative problem-solving in group settings. Diversity has made this country the cultural wonder it is, with cuisine and culture and language and a desire to work hard and provide a better future for our families uniting us in a beautiful array of human experience and collective action. Mr. Miller and his ilk see that same strength as a tragic flaw for white Americans. The reality is that far-right economic policies, a failure to address the opioid crisis, rising suicide rates coupled with high gun ownership, poor access to healthcare, and a diversionary focus on a non-existent culture war have driven down the prospects and the life expectancy of white Americans. How ironic that the bogeyman causing so much white panic is the very one ranting and raving about immigration and the invasion of brown folks.
6
The key statement on this column seems to say that Republicans are all for immigration, but their hands are tied by their voters. While I believe it about a majority of them voters, I really doubt it about their caucus.
As to the relationship with their rank and file, who reached out to the racists in the first place?
7
As I recall, Trump reached out to the bigotry in some parts of the base with his comment about Mexican rapists, later adding that some Mexicans might be "very fine people". Trump's real estate history of denying rental property access to black people, has been out there for a long time; he was known to evict poor black tenants under the guise of renovation work; that work was never done. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote, was appointed/elected by the Reconstruction era Electoral College, ought to be enough to shut Miller up. Miller was said to be a racist in high school, and later in college. He remains a racist with a platform handed to him by Trump. I grew up in the Central Valley with Mexican families; they worked hard, sent their kids to school and on to college. I have no respect for Trump's opinions about Mexicans. And, if you want to start with low wage exploitation, start with builders, developers et al. Move on to Big Ag. None of the poor Mexican immigrants would be coming unless there were jobs for them. The corrupt elite in Mexico is happy to send its poor to Texas and other border States.
1
I don't believe negotiating with bigots is a principled stand. The arrogance that Miller and Trump demonstrate about their racism has proved them to be less than helpful in convincing the rest of us that they are sincere partners for negotiation.
8
Well stated. There are strong economic, environmental, and even cultural reasons to reduce immigration to historical levels of 250000 people per year versus the over 1 million per year levels we have had recently. Stephen Miller represents the viewpoint of vast numbers of ordinary Americans who want less immigration, not more, and want our immigration laws enforced. This is actually a rational position to hold; not racist, xenophobic, nor nativist. We already have 328 million people and really are getting pretty crowded. We really don’t need more people and need to stabilize our population and start working towards real sustainability.
1
There are many aspects of this matter which I'll ignore is speaking only to my direct experience of "Mexican" immigration. In Central Kansas where I taught for a year, the Great Bend and other public schools educated children some of whose parents were clearly "illegal." The younger the children, the more eagerly and totally they immersed themselves in the English language and American culture. Moreover, most were Catholic, though a significant minority were Evangelical Protestants. The Chambers of Commerce in the region loved this immigration because these children's parents were extremely valuable laborers and their demand for shelter put a very solid floor under housing values across the region. Their labor paid the way for these worthies to attend to party business and to go to the Republican National Conventions in presidential years. The deep hypocrisy of the Republican Party on this issue today is simply stupefying. Now these immigrants and their fully naturalized earlier immigrant relatives are learning to hate the Republican Party and all its works. It is economically and culturally suicidal and absurdly evil, in every respect.
12
“ ...these children's parents were extremely valuable laborers…”
With the possible exception of agriculture, the undocumented are filling jobs that are needed by American citizens. The PEW Trust found that only 5% of the undocumented work in agriculture. 95% are taking jobs from our own citizens. Employers tend to prefer the undocumented because they work for less. Many want to be paid “under the table” so the employer does not have to pay taxes on them. And, the undocumented do not complain about the low level of pay or the poor working conditions.
Tens of thousands of our own citizens cannot find a decent-paying job, and many more cannot find full-time employment because they are competing with a flood of undocumented immigrants who will work for anything, and who, by their sheer numbers, have driven down wages.
It is no wonder that some employers love the undocumented. The Chambers of Commerce are made up of such employers. They have managed to close their eyes to the plight of ordinary American citizens and their families.
1
Did the "Pew trust" find that such immigrants were taking jobs that American citizens wanted, or is this your individual view of what that survey found? In any case, illegal immigrants to this country are replacing labor lost to a low birth rate, particularly among white Americans. Who can ignore such glaring facts?
1
"The Chambers of Commerce in the region loved this immigration because … their demand for shelter put a very solid floor under housing values across the region."
Most of the undocumented live in big cities, not in central Kansas. They live where it is hard to find “affordable housing”, and they occupy much of it, leaving many American citizens homeless. While a high percentage of homeless are mentally ill and/ or addicted to drugs, a good number have jobs.
The ones with jobs are earning less than they would be had they not had to compete with a flood of undocumented workers. Plus, there would be more low rent apartments available because the undocumented would not be living in them. On the coasts, there are so many people vying for “affordable housing” that the rents have become less affordable. The result of all of this is that the undocumented have pushed many working Americans onto the streets.
The future of immigration in the U.S.?
It appears to me vast and increasing American not to mention world population, and population typically broken up into crude group categories, and especially the most resistant categories such as race, ethnicity and religion, will lead to at least highly selective immigration into America and possibly even a shutting down of immigration. America seems to handle immigration in the sense of smoothing over cultural differences between people, but the categories of race and ethnicity and religion seem rather resistant, difficult to overcome, except among the highly educated, which is to say highly educated natives meeting highly educated immigrants seems the ideal situation when it comes to a country receiving immigrants.
In America today the biggest immigrant tension is the problem of demographics. You cannot expect to have increasing populations along racial, ethnic and religious lines in one nation without serious problems. In America today we have something of a silent arms race, this group breeding up against that, and groups working together to multiply their numbers and form coalitions, such as the left wing, against other or single groups, such as caucasians in the right wing. We're just inviting conflict and already we have this and that law enforcement, educational, bureaucratic, technocratic method largely dedicated to sheer crowd control, the prevention of violence.
We need fair regulation of population and assimilation.
The premise that a reduction of immigration equals a reduction in crime is dangerous when one considers the demographic that causes the most crime in our country.
4
Has it occurred to any of these "merit based" enthusiasts that the educated and skilled may take better jobs and reduce the wages of native-born skilled workers? Of course not. These touters of a "merit-based" system just want white-ish, middle class people like themselves in their neighborhoods. The "meritorious" already have more access to immigration than the huddled masses. Yet it is the broad mix of nations and backgrounds that have built America into a great nation---not more people like "me."
5
Mr. Douthat, you've made arguments that disprove your case.
You tell us 2/3 of Americans want to maintain or increase immigration levels. Awkward. Enough Americans disagree with Miller to override his views with a filibuster-proof majority, and the % who disagree with him is nearly large enough to pass a constitutional amendment. The long-standing rules of US republican democracy and the VERY HIGH bar of the nation's founders deem Miller's views UNWORTHY of a seat at the table.
You also tell us, "increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." Ummm. Did INCREASED ethnic/racial diversity stress European politics in the 1910s? Nope. But it must have been INCREASED racial/ethnic diversity that stressed US politics in the 1950s/1960s. Nope. There was the same mix, but dark skinned people "shockingly" sought a larger share of the economic pie.
Ross, you know that it isn't an INCREASE in racial/ethnic diversity that stresses politics. Stress has ALWAYS come from one dominant racial/ethnic group facing a decline in its economic standing after becoming less competitive vs. disruptive economic forces.
Germans blamed the Jews for a global depression. Miller's cohort blames brown people for the squeeze on US workers from corporate efficiency (capitalism) and robots (progress).
If the middle class is the concern, you and Miller should address these challenges to human living conditions rather than scapegoating diversity.
4
Mr. Douthat, you seem to limit your views of Stephen Miller to his hard line stand on immigration. If that is all he brought to the White House, one might be able to negotiate immigration with him at the table. Unfortunately, Stephen Miller has made statements that suggests strongly, he leans strongly toward authoritarianism. He has argued one cannot argue with President Trump, because he is the President. He has argued that the President has the right to enact any Executive Order that the President, deem legal without regard to the courts. That Mr. Douthat; puts Stephen Miller in a category of right-wing that is dangerous on any number of subjects, including immigration.
13
No. Just no. Whatever necessity there may be for somebody there is absolutely no necessity for Stephen Miller and there never will be.
12
There are plenty of elected people in Congress who can serve in the place of Miller on the opposition side. I object to this little toady being anywhere close to the seat of power. He only declaims, he doesn’t listen to anyone.
11
The twelve years of failed negotiations, I humbly believe, is strictly due to the GOP's unwillingness to give any measurable success to the previous administration. Unfortunately in our present circumstance, having the Miller brand of white nationalism, is a necessary, and I do mean, evil.
The problem with their skills based admissions policy, is it ignores certain facts. How many stories throughout our history begin, my parents moved here with nothing, worked multiple jobs, stressed education, now I'm a success. Apparent skills tests would probably miss these people, leaving us without those with the drive, determination, and chip on their shoulder necessary to drive our economy and society.
3
How many qualified American students, graduates from Cal Tech, MIT, UC et al do not get jobs given to foreign hires through "consultancies"? The foreign hires will work for less, and no benefits; their families will support them financially so they can work in the U.S. This is not a level playing field. Families who sacrificed to send their kids to colleges and universities have a right to assume that it was a path to better jobs. Corporations have broken a social contract, established decades ago. We now have a small percentage of corporate owners using Citizens United to elect men like Trump; to write and dictate legislation in their bought Congress. It is way past time to call a halt to this corporate take over of our government, social construct, and our democratic merit based value system. The Board of Directors of GE do not represent me.
No, grand bargains do not reflect the shape of public opinion. They shape it and transcend it.
Public opinion in this case is a manipulated, emotional product of Republican scapegoating and lies about immigration, and the racism Douthat recognizes. Economic uncertainty has been exacerbated by the loss of public goods for all to share because of Republican tax cuts at both the national and state level. Plus worsening income inequality.
Putting Miller at the table is equivalent to Douthat proposing, as he did a few weeks ago, that we need to let his fetid Evangelical friends discriminate against LBGT people 'cause that's just fair to them.
8
You assume that Trump’s latest offer is a reflection of both his own and Miller’s thinking. In truth it may not even be a reflection of Trump’s thinking at the time he made it - never mind a day later. Miller is not only racist, he is intransigent. Not a person to invite to a negotiation.
5
Douthat states that "increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." That's only because people make it a political football, especially like Trump, who uses it to appeal to his base, stoking prejudice and anti-immigrant sentiment. Taking an "us vs. them" approach is divisive and odes nto get us anywhere. Miller has his own racist agenda---go back and look at his record, and it is as plain as day. Miller is precisely what we don't need in the White House.
4
There is certainly merit to the argument that, in order to get the votes to enact broad and lasting immigration reform, anti-immigrant voices that I may find repugnant cannot be ignored.
The single biggest problem I see is that an increasing number of Democrats simply do not trust their Republican friends and neighbors to compromise o even abide by our supposedly shared values anymore. Tribalism is nothing new, but I personally think it's different this time. An increasing number of moderate and liberal Democrats, at least those I speak to, just don't think the word of McConnel or Ryan or maybe even Collins, let alone Trump, can be trusted, even if Democratic politicians approach negotiations in good faith and make concessions.
I think this is thoroughly justified; in my opinion, the GOP has betrayed the core values of our republic. Republicans are collectively complicit in the moral (if not necessarily practical) monstrosity that is the Trump presidency, and I tend to think the party as a whole cannot be trusted for that reason. But, regardless, I think having not one but now two parties who have moved toward opposition to any compromise is going to make meaningful, bipartisan reform through legislation all but impossible. I hope to be proved wrong, or many innocent people will suffer needlessly.
A border wall could better translate to more fencing in crucial areas, better border enforcement by hiring of additional border agents, and improved surveillance, but most important the will in part of the federal government, to revisit the immigration laws and incentives that draw more illegals to this country. The USA is being affected by the exodus into our territory by unskilled immigrants or ‘escapees’, unreasonable in numbers, that depress our nation’s standard of living, and puts a strain in our resources. It is real that many countries are encouraging and promoting their most disadvantaged classes to immigrate.
The USA must also stop the influx of ’escapees’ of foreign unskilled and unemployed persons as we can not be the solution to other nations economic problems.
Only the US and Canada are the only major countries still offering citizenship by birthright or ius soli, which is an out of sync concept passed in the 14TH amendment because of wanting to protect the former African slaves, but at present being misused by illegal and transient mothers. Even Australia, an avant garde and liberal democracy amended their constitution to remove ius soli in 2007, and replaced it ius sanguini, or citizenship according to the nationality of the parents.
Better border enforcement is really a national security matter, and should be an act of legitimate defense, more so in turbulent times. Thirty three countries worldwide are building 15,000 miles of fences, across 66 borders.
1
You seem to ignore that most illegal/undocumented persons came here legally and overstayed. Fencing them in is not going solve that problem.
2
Never said that. Persons that overstayed their visas are about 40% of the illegals, and through a better e-verify system and together with stiffer illegal employer penalties they could be reduced. Revision and modernization of the immigration laws is a must so they will be up to date with present market demands.
1
Immigration is clearly an emotionally charged issue on both sides. But no matter what quarter you inhabit on this issue there is a demographic conundrum which is rapidly propelling us towards a cliff that does not seem to be getting very much attention.
In one of the links Ross provides we see that as in the past, the second generation of immigrants seems to economically assimilate just fine. The concern Ross points to in the article though is the rising percentage of immigrants to the native population as represented by both the first and second generation combined is viewed by many on the right as problematic.
The fact is that this rise is substantially attributable not just to immigration levels but to the plummeting birth rates of Americans.
Turn the whole argument on its head. If this chart does not manifest itself into reality, we are in deep trouble. We are aging rapidly and we will not have anywhere near enough young people to pay for our social security by 2050. Think that’s not a problem? Look at xenophobic Japan. The oldest developed nation on earth. They are in deep trouble and don’t grow. Creating jobs to pay taxes requires workers. We don’t have enough and its getting worse.
Unless birth rates magically change, we need these people whether we like them or not. We better figure out how to assimilate them or we will rapidly decline as an economy in the next 25 years!
3
At no point in his public career has Stephen Miller shown any of the skills needed by a negotiator "present" at the table. Like all of Trump's appointees, he is unfit for the tasks of the job he was hired to do, but good at attracting and keeping Trump's attention by his outrageous personal attacks on opponents. Allowing Stephen Miller to represent the views he is exploiting in any negotiation process is a certain way for that process to fail.
5
One of Douthat's biggest fears is that business friendly Republicans will agree to a compromise on immigration that causes the base to revolt. If Stephen Miller is at the table there will not be any compromise and he knows it. The status quo will continue but businesses will still get their cheap illegal labor and racist demagogues can continue delivering the votes for Douthat's preferred social policies.
3
Not arguing one way or another - arguing for a more honest conversation: Why doesn’t the author mention the massive hole in the workforce left by the boomers as they retire? Using the size of the boom and identifying the years it occurred in - easily attainable data - any person, including Ross, can extrapolate how their retirement will impact the size of the workforce in ten, twenty, thirty years down the road. Changes in workforce size of this magnitude significantly alter a nation’s productivity. We know how declines in productivity can “stress” a nation; this is a conversation that should be had now. Now, though, it remains unmentioned.
And where’s the argument? All I see are assumptions about merit-based, ie high-skill, immigration. Somehow, a merit-based policy is better. But, again, it’s left unexplained. These positions are supposed to be argued for using reasons.
How does a conservative opinion writer manage to avoid finding and using this kind of data in his attempt to open minds to a restrictionist position? There may be “merit” to a conservative position, but we still wouldn’t know it after reading this piece.
Proper discussion eludes us. Or was this editorial supposed to motivate something other than that?
2
A a liberal, in principle, I am open to discussing a restrictive immigration policy with all sides represented except one; the racists. Unfortunately, racists make up a considerable percentage of our society and without racist involvement, a sustainable consensus is impossible. This raises the question: Should liberals open themselves to discussing restrictive immigration policies with racists on the assumption that any consensus achieved would incorporate a partial racist outcome? For me, the answer is yes in light of the fact that there is no alternative short of civil war-- which is unacceptable.
Trump and Miller's "skill based" immigration is simply an extension of the already abused and misused H1-B program. This exception to the usual immigration line allows a company to hire immigrants who have skills for specialized jobs that supposedly can't be filled from our domestic work force.
While originally touted as a means of bringing in engineers and some computer scientists, it is now bringing in a host of workers whose jobs could go to American workers.
The real appeal of the H1-B immigrant is that they are paid substantially less than their American counterpart. They have no bargaining power and if they don't like the terms of their job they can be fired and have 60 days to leave the country.
Trump's "skill based immigration" would take jobs away from the American workers he claims to support. But it would benefit big companies by driving wages down.
There's is some evidence that this occurs in certain sectors under our present immigration laws, but skill based immigration would extend this to what are generally considered middle class jobs.
As usual Trump talks like a populist, but acts like a capitalist.
2
Mr. Douthat's seemingly rational argument in support of Stephen Miller's voice in the immigration debately, namely that about a third of the American population (natively born?) are in agreement with Miller's positions, is simply an apology for bigotry. If a third of the populace is ill-informed, does that give license to bad policy decisions? All of the angst about "assimilation," and the other societal concerns about immigration are not grounded in fact, but in fear, which has been stoked for political reasons. If Mr. Douthat wants to argue that fear of societal ills caused by immigration are a reason for Mr. Miller's views on immigration to be taken seriously, then he has implicitly accepted that these conjectured ills are fact, wothout the supporting evidence. Seems to me, a first generation immigrant, that most social ills are rooted in the native population's bigotry.
2
Thank you, Mr. Douthat for your thoughtful essay on this difficult issue.
In your fourth paragraph you reference some general statistics about what Americans think about immigration rates. Americans ideas about immigration rates are, thanks to folks like Stephen Miller, emotionally charged and based on little or no knowledge of the subject. I'm skeptical as to the extent of Miller's knowledge on the subject? It would have been helpful for you to include a paragraph illustrating his expertise. While you make interesting comments about bigotry you seem to be ignoring the fact that we are unlikely to achieve a rational, lasting deal when white supremacists are at the head of the negotiating table?
I get it that we must try to move forward the best we can and work with the tools we have available but we must also be realistic about the tools in Trump's box, and boy, Stephen Miller is some tool.
Pick your issue: immigration, tax, education, health care, international relations, and environmental policy are not going in any lasting or rational direction under this administration.
4
I find this article humorous as this country, except for the native Americans we have done so much to kill off we, ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS OR THE DESCENDANTS OF IMMIGRANTS. As each succeeding wave of immigrants arrives the "natives" want to limit their entry. This small minded approach will keep out so many who can improve the country and possibly the world with their intellect. I believe the lady in NY harbor says it best.
8
Look at societies like Japan & Germany who have discovered that strictly homogeneous populations are not feasible into the future. If we want a viable workforce into the future to sustain our aging population, family friendly immigration policies & getting over our fear of folks whose skin is 1 shade darker than 45 or Miller.
If I saw a corresponding effort to invest in education in our country so that those who are unprepared for present & future jobs than 45's plans might be more believable. It also might allay the fears of those who are or have been displaced in the work force. However many of these programs have been terminated by this administration.
6
Actually, the programs you refer to in your last paragraph never existed in the US. And explain, please, where all the millions you want to bring into the US will work when automation and robotics eliminate a large percentage of the available jobs, at EVERY level.
"increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics."
It is undoubtedly true that a racially homogeneous population would reduce some of the stresses on our politics and. It is unclear whether avoiding stress, discomfort, difficulty, and so forth is somehow a worthy aim. The epochal upheavals that took place between 1955 and 1975 put enormous stresses on American politics and society more broadly. I think we are a better country for it.
"There are... reasons to think that a native working class gripped by social crisis might benefit from a little less wage competition for a while."
Unemployment is at record lows. If you want wage protection, favor organized labor. Or raise the minimum wage.
Finally, it is as disingenuous to characterize a 2/3 majority to maintain or increase immigration as elite consensus as it is to portray Stephen Miller's views, aims, and motives as being broadly representative of the other 1/3 of the population.
9
The vast majority of us in the US really have no idea what the true issues are in immigration policy. We just spout what our "side" wants. It seems that a reasonable compromise could be made, if people truly listened to each other and had adequate information. That is the optimist in me speaking. The pessimist in me says that most people in the country do not feel that they are directly affected by the issue and therefore don't care about the details, they just want to know that their side won.
Since we have to depend on Congress to handle this we can hope the former is true (they certainly have the resources to gather adequate information), but I fear the later will prevail.
14
Douthat, if you can negotiate with Stephen Miller, you can put steam back in the tea kettle.
Once that man's pressure valve pops, the words don't stop. He rocks back and forth like the aforementioned container, jiggling on a glowing red burner. Trump prefers this in his spokespersons, witness Kellyanne Conway.
As for the foreign-born percentage of the population's "near-record high," it's not even close to where it stood at the wind down of the Indian Wars, when the true "native" population had been reduced from the many tens of millions resident here in 1600 to barely three million, if that.
Stephen Miller is not helping this matter in the least.
66
"Word vomit" was an answer in Friday's NYT crossword puzzle . I immediately thought of Miller.
4
I find Ross Dothan's argument interesting, and if Stephen Miller and his allies such as Jeff Sessions and Steve Bannon (along with Donald Trump) were actually open to alternatives beyond their own world view, the idea of having Miller at the table might be productive. However, the roots of the Miller-Sessions-Bannon-Trump approach to immigration are grounded in racism and xenophobia--reflected in the 1924 National Origins Act, a law which was unabashedly founded on eugenics and a desire for racial purification. There has been a noticeable silence about the long effort to reform the 1924 law, a goal which was realized in the mid-1960s under the Johnson Administration, when the racist quotas and other restrictions in the 1924 law were rescinded. For decades, people of good will sought reform of the 1924 law, only to come up short. The claim that "family reunification and chain migration" are harming the United States is simply coded language for restricting non-white immigrants to the United States, a goal that the 1924 law was very effective in achieving.
Immigration has been one of the most positive factors in contributing to the development of a more democratic and pluralistic United States. The Miller-Sessions-Bannon-Trump proposal on immigration will take us back to a very bad place, and unless Miller renounces his racist views and comes clean about what the proposal really wants to achieve, then I say his presence at the negotiations table would not be a good idea.
41
I couldn't agree with William more. Reading this column today made me ill. If Stephen Miller were interested in, and OPEN TO, negotiating, your argument makes sense Ross. But why argue he has a right to a place holder when he's demonstrated clearly and repeatedly he has no respect for others' views? On what part of God's green earth do you think him sitting at the table would make that meeting productive? This has nothing whatsoever to do with GOP vs. Democrats for god's sake.
3
The real issue here is that too many Democrats are trying to drive forward using the rear view mirror.It isn't at all obvious that attitudes to immigration and policies reflecting them shouldn't be revisited every hundred years or so.Conflating our history as a country of immigrants with what our needs are going forward serves no purpose.As a mature Developed World country in a technology enabled Global system we will only be successful if we are competitive.A knowledge economy has different requirements to an Industrial one.Focus on importing talent rather than all comers makes sense.Filling jobs Americans don't want to do with fixed term visas for "guest workers" is already a feature in some areas of agriculture and could be broadened and strengthened.Limiting immigration to the nuclear family may also be a reasonable "default"with exceptions allowed based on strict and demonstrable criteria.All thoughtful Americans should be a comfortable debating what the policies should be.It need not be what it has always been.
15
The problem with this sort of thinking, and in fact the entire Trump approach to governing (if it can be called that) is that it reduces America to a single concept: an economy. I think it is the most offensive part of the Trump/GOP effort. America is more than an economy, and we should have goals and aspirations beyond simply competing with other nations for our share of the world's wealth. We already have way more than anyone else, already. Progressives recognize this and set goals of equality and fairness and opportunity for all people, including immigrants.
1
your view is a perfect example of what I am talking about.the American Dream is about a STANDARD OF LIVING.This is declining in the US because of increasing lack of competitiveness.I am a Democrat who recognizes that progressives have the luxury of their world view because of prosperity.No one cares about social issues, the climate or refugees when they are focussed on putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.
You forget who cleans buildings and harvests the crops. US citizens want onl the jobs that pay more than minimum wage.
You only have to watch a television interview with him to realize that any rational negotiation with Stephen Miller is an exercise in futility.
49
Put me, an immigrant, down to negotiated settlement. The extreme right and extreme left want to keep the issue alive - for politics sake. Meanwhile real people suffer. There are also good people waiting (for long years) for legal entry, people who enter illegally shouldn’t get ahead of them. Skills based policies is beneficial- we will need workers in specific areas going forward.
The Wall is idiotic in the 21st century. Everyone knows it - a complete waste of money and time that could be spent on ways to limit illegal entry that would actually work.
20
Seems to me that if we can identify these skills that are beneficial from an immigration perspective, we can train and educate people here with these skills. There are pockets of the country where such a commitment exists. We have a Department of Education that should be driving such a commitment, a commitment to assure that we can develop a competitive, skilled workforce. For years now we have treated education as an expense that should be minimized so taxes can be low. It is amazing that a large wealthy country like ours is dependent on other countries for the development of people with these skills, while we have starved so many education systems.
4
Where’s Miller fit into the debate? Including him and others like him is a non starter for all rational people.
One of the big questions raised by having a president who can’t see beyond his nose and doesn’t care to because he loves himself, is:
How Do people who look for long term empathic, inclusionary solutions learn to negotiate with short sighted “me first” people ?
DJT has it slightly wrong. It’s Donald Trump first and America second. Or ,America first if it helps keep Donald Trump rich and protected from outside interests who disagree with his ideas.
Now let’s negotiate!
10
Trump lacks the qualifications, compassion, and experience to navigate this complex matter
Stephen Miller even more so
As a result, we’ve frightened highly qualified people from exploring immigration to the U.S.
We’re also endangering our economic growth by cutting our pipeline of labor
All the while, our executive branch does not have a clear vision that our legislative branch can use as a framework
12
Steven Miller's stance on immigration is aggressively biased against immigration in general, and toward some nationalities in particular. We've witnessed him at WH press briefings and in interviews, shaming reporters wh care to discuss differences in the administration's views, or how Miller himself is shaping immigration policy.
Trump, like any leader, has people working for him who at least side with his point of view. Miller is the most vociferous fan of Trump, at least who I have seen. He easily achieved notoriety a few weeks ago in an interview on CNN with Jake Tapper, which started on a cordial note. But as Tapper continued to ask Miller to answer questions that had arisen about his boss since the publicaton of Fast and Furious, Miller did everything short of standing on his head to steer that train off the tracks, and to direct it toward letting him use the interview as a stage to showboat Trump's poliicies, beliefs, and promises to his constituents. I've never seen a buttinsky fawn over Donald Trump more than Miller did. The take-away I gained from that interview was there is someone in the WH madly in love with Trump, and it is not his wife. Speaking of take-away: CNN reported that Steve Miller had to be escorted off the set by CNN's security.
No, this is not someone whose side you want represented at a bargaining table. With Miller, there is no bargaining. He made his mind up at an age when young people still seach for truth.
16
The child has already been born who makes the United States a majority minority country.
So, the goal to make America white again is already out of reach.
The Dreamers and the other 11 million undocumented immigrants ought to be documented with a path to citizenship. When they are documented, working legally, paying taxes--including FICA that funds Social Security and Medicare--they are contributing to the economy and the well-being of the nation.
And, Trump can have his wall the minute Mexico cuts US a check.
The United States is US. We get the government we deserve.
9
Stephen Miller can be at the table as long as he first picks the crops left unharvested by those he has sought to banish.
18
He'll force Medicaid recipients to pick those crops. Kids have nimble fingers...
1
I think the fundamental problem is that Mr. Miller’s “restrictionist” immigration policies are rooted more in racial and cultural animus than in real policy concerns. His proposed cutbacks on legal immigration would weaken our economy, cutbacks on family immigration could make us less safe (by weakening social supports), etc. That fundamentally changes the consequences of giving him a voice at the table.
It is interesting that conservatives have criticized liberals for supposed “moral relativism” for years, when it seems that it is conservatives who are becoming morally unmoored. I’m no philosopher, but it seems to me that liberals are proving quite attached to a number of moral absolutes, foremost a fundamental belief in the intrinsic value of all human beings, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Ironically, I think that those accused of “identity politics” are often less concerned with who people ARE than with what they DO, with how we all comport ourselves in an imperfect world.
The best leaders call on us to recognize the worst in ourselves and overcome it, even while acknowledging that we are all at times inclined to judge others who are different from ourselves. Mr. Miller and Mr. Trump do not lead us towards our better selves, but instead fan the flames of discord, exploiting our worst impulses to gain and maintain power. Isn't there real danger in giving that worldview a legitimate seat at the table?
9
Perhaps it's possible to negotiate a better immigration system in exchange for steps that would genuinely secure our borders from illegal immigration. More funding for immigration screening, so people don't have to wait years just for an interview, in exchange for a "wall," although probably not a literal one, since that's not the most efficient use of funds. Go ahead and institute E-Verify, and create an exit visa program. If you have a visa for 180 days, on day 181 your identity gets flagged in a database available to law enforcement and employers if you haven't scanned your passport crossing the border or on a plane or ship heading out of the country. If we have effective control over how many people come in, it would alleviate most of the anti-immigration hysteria, and we might be able to come up with a reasonable and rational system.
And rather than worrying about what color someone is, we should be looking at the relative cost of living and currency exchange rate between the U.S. and their country. The president was right in one respect, in that an engineer or computer programmer from Norway is not likely to come the U.S. unless the job pays at least as much as he'd make in Norway, which is probably roughly the same. If the average pay for given job in the U.S. is $80k, but only $$40k somewhere else, immigrants from that country would probably be happy with $60k, which will have the effect of driving down wages here.
3
Mr. Douthat applies his "everyone should be represented at the table" notion selectively. On healthcare, for example, a substantial majority of Americans wants negotiated prices for pharmaceuticals. Large numbers also want either single payer or at least a public option. Why doesn't Mr. Douthat write a column about the need to incorporate these ideas into policy?
Writing about the need to incorporate the ideas of Stephen Miller, who in the past clearly struck others as either being racist or promoting racism, should have given Mr. Douthat pause. The fact that it didn't should give all of us pause when we read Mr. Douthat.
16
This is a great Opinion that reveals more about the author than about the issues. First, "...increased diversity and the distrust it sows...". Diversity per se hardly sows distrust. Distrust is rather sown by the Republican party beginning with its "Southern Strategy" that has a natural application to immigration. Why solve immigration when you can use it to whip up fear and win elections. Our Democracy has suffered mightily as a result of this - what should be - treasonous strategy (as Lindsey Graham counseled Trump: America is an idea).
The second concept that reveals Mr Douthat's thinking is the repeated reference to American-born (whites?) as "native". Yeah, let's ignore that the great preponderance of American "natives" were once immigrants.
But it is reasonable to an extent to posit that if like-minded politicians get together to craft legislation, it won't fly in the broader body of Congress. However, those working on legislation should at least agree that comprehensive immigration reform is important to accomplish. The problem is the Miller's of the country will loose more than they gain if a bipartisan comprehensive policy is passed.
4
I think it is careless or at least naive to cite negotiating postures without taking on the cynical political motivations that drive them.
As policy advisor to a president who claims to have lost the popular vote only because the illegitimate votes of millions of illegal immigrants, Miller’s priority is political. The choices the Republicans are forcing on the Democrats in these negotiations are designed to reinforce Trump’s image to his own base and the Freedom Caucus, while splintering Democratic constituencies.
What other values does Mr. Miller really demonstrate?
8
As I read this piece...I could see the logic and even a reason to have a Miller at the table---but that would assume that Miller and Trump would be acting in good faith---that the logics Mr. Douthat is describing is actually how both men think about the issue. But, as the liberals have observed when negotiating with these two men is both are fundamentally racists and dishonest---now, how or where to begin to negotiate with those two realities.
11
Miller is a political arsonist. He loves to insult decency at every level and will attack people who disagree with him. His acting out is designed to get a rise out of his opponent - to get them hopping mad. This is the fire that thrills him. His penchant for incendiary atavism is aptly explained from the following quote in the book Fire and Fury, by Michael Wolf that described him as: "a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body. Other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone."
12
As Americans, we are so diverse it's killing us to live together in peace and harmony. You say California is prosperous and dynamic "but" increasingly stratified by race (do you mean ethnicity?) So, what is this suppose to mean? Stratification means prosperity and dynamism and that's not good?
Five hours across the water is Hawaii where EVERY resident belongs to a minority, even white folks. There is no majority group and it’s the only state among 50 with this distinction. And most every visitor would love to live there if they could afford it. Why aren’t there more states like Hawaii?
Hawaii may be out in the middle of the Pacific, but when it comes to modeling the future of America, it doesn’t mean Hawaii is an outlier. It is a worthy future and we all need to tune in and learn, respect, and enjoy it.
6
Ross raises an interesting question that has been brewing since Trump's election: do the bigots get a seat at the negotiating table? The answer will determine whether we as a nation have learned anything in the last 100 years.
12
This is all about maintaining White Republican control -- and nothing else. It would be interesting to see polls of immigrants who become citizens with voting rights. What percentage register and vote as Republicans?
6
Mike you are in the skinny minority of those of us who are ok, in general, with what we have. I unfortunately have several 50- year friends who highly Christian who are very much on your side.
JT
The GOP has a history of inventing crises suitable to the fears of their base. An egregious example is Ronald Reagan's phony "crisis in our schools", which he introduced as though it were a kitchen table topic all across America. No one had ever heard of this great crisis until the Reagan campaign invented it. And here we have Ross Douthat admitting to the well-known fact that illegal immigration has tapered off over the last decade. He also knows that Trump based his campaign on the spurious claim that illegal immigrants are pouring across our borders, ravenous to commit heinous crimes. A truly disinterested and functioning media would be hammering on the facts, not right wing slop. Our entire politics since 1980 has been poisoned by one right wing lie after another: Climate change is a liberal conspiracy, public education is failing (and we'll prove it by breaking it), competition will bring health care costs down (how has that worked out?), government regulation is strangling businesses (in a country where corporations continue to record profits), and most infamously, that tax cuts will promote a wage and jobs boom, a trick that his failed twice in living memory. Why isn't Ross Douthat talking about the sham of contemporary conservatism instead of trying to rehabilitate Steven Miller? The answer is obvious - he has been a party to these lies his entire career.
10
I agree with Ross that it is time to try something different. While not perfect, it solves the Dreamer problem, and the money for border security, while in my opinion a waste of tax dollars, will at least get pumped back into the economy. I would even support a stronger e-verify.
Unfortunately, even if the moderates of both parties agree, it will be torn asunder by to extremes, especially the far right in the house. Enough are fueled by racist attitudes that they will convince Speaker Ryan, more and more spineless everyday, to block any proposal that hints of amnesty, even for a sensible group like the Dreamers
47
In reply to Cobber62: Why would you qualify your support of e-Verify with the word even? It is the only real solution to illegal immigration. I have done it myself so I can say that checking the identification of employees is bothersome but entirely possible. Employers who do not do so should face serious fines and jail for repeat offenders. A few headlines about an employer going to jail would end hiring of illegal immigrants in any state. End hiring and you will end illegal immigration.
2
This is nothing short of disgusting. Every once in a while, I concede that Mr. Douthat may have a point - but not here.
If the United States is not about openness and acceptance, then we have no claim to being the good guys - we're just one more power-player, albeit more successful than most. And yes, sometimes constitutional republican government is about tempering the worst instincts of some of its citizens, rather than adopting those instincts.
As far as Steven Miller is concerned, the thought that that adolescent monster - who would have kept my grandparents in rural Russia in a heartbeat - has any influence on policy whatsoever, let alone serves as a "senior advisor" = is horrifying.
8
I have to disagree with this title and argument. Stephen Miller is not necessary at all to this process, except that he provides the spine that Trump is lacking. He only represents one side of Trump's ever-varying gut reactions (I was going to write "thinking" but I realized that was incorrect) on immigration. Is presence is only to bring the message of the extreme side of the administration. He is not an elected representative of the people, and his stance is representative of small minority, Trump's shrinking base. Our true representatives from Congress are the ones who should be working out the bipartisan solution to the issue of immigration.
1
Douthat never offers the alternative which goes ever unaddressed: why can’t leaders on the right attempt to educate their constituents instead of mutely acceding and even in some cases inflaming their ill-informed ideas about immigration? I think I know the answer (inflaming their base is good politics and prevents the Republicans from actually having to create compassionate policy for the disenfranchised working poor) but Ross never acknowledges that granting an ignorant position standing in a negotiation doesn’t produce outcomes which address the real problems. Why not?
3
The problem with Stephen Miller and those who think like him, is that they are now in complete control of all three branches of government without representing any voice other than their own.
Granted, immigration has been a throny issue for this country since its founding days, even as it liked to see itself as a place of welcome to the rest of the world, but actually achieving this kind of diversity has always been a delicate balacing act.
There's no doubt that a comprehensive immigration policy is long overdue, but the way this current administration plans to go about it is not only myopic -- it's unabashedly racist.
As a result, if any constructive changes are to be made to this country's present stance on immigration, that would be a good place to start.
2
Many of the comments listed here emphasize Majority rules as the mechanism behind government policy-making. The Founding Fathers we’re worried about that exact issue when they developed the structure of Congress. The House of Representatives was created to present the current will of the people, whereas the Senate with its constant 2 representatives per state was to ensure that states with small populations had their say. The structure was designed to force compromise and discussion of the effect of proposed legislation on minority populations into all decision-making, but the system has become a twisted version of what was intended. Extremist politics has doomed us to an undamped sine curve bouncing between the outer edge of each party’s views. This op-ed is merely an effort to start the discussion.
Trump has successfully “flooded the zone” with a parade of fringe buffoons, racists and bold-faced liars. Any kind of consensus is lost in the scrum. While we do need comprehensive immigration reform and I don’t disagree with some of Trump’s proposals, why validate any of this? Why treat it as normal and give Trump a win? All reasonable people across the political spectrum need to turn their backs on this turkey and see what happens in November.
4
I think you assume all Democrats are the elite and all Trump supporters, not Republicans mind you, are the not elite. Well I am a Democrat and I am not elite and I think anyone brought to this country as a child all those years ago and are employed, paying taxes, and giving back to the community should be granted citizenship. I work with these people, I employ these people, and I socialize with here people. They are no better or worse than the people Trump is looking to let in.
Letting all voices be heard is certainly important but it seems there is a much louder negative allowed than the consistent positive.
1
What else doesn't Stephen Miller know about immigration?
Humans use social networks to resolve all sorts of basic survival problems. Immigration worldwide is driven by social networks. Refugees, immigrants, cyclical migrants, all rely on networks of kin and compadres to chose where to go, to obtain shelter and work, and to survive crises. Without such networks, there is little to no immigration.
The desire to end "chain migration" rests on ignorance of this.
1
From the Pew Research center:http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/05/03/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/
1. Foreign born population was 9.6M in 1950 and today is 42 M.
2. From the Pew center: "The arrival of new immigrants and the births of their children and grandchildren account for 55% of the U.S. population increase from 193 million in 1965 to 324 million today. The new Pew Research Center projections also show that the nation is projected to grow to 441 million in 2065 and that 88% of the increase is linked to future immigrants and their descendants."
Unless you are still living in the Rift Valley in East Africa, you are an immigrant. The argument that 'we are a nation of immigrants" is irrelevant to the immigration choices to be made today. Immigration into the US is a choice, and neither a necessity nor an obligation. US Immigration policy is up to US citizens and there is no "Right" or "Wrong" answer because it is a choice.
Personally, it seems to me that we are defaulting towards a choice of overpopulation, which seems to me not to be in the interests of current US citizens. It is not who or where immigrants come from, it is about the numbers, and the consequences of those numbers. Personally, I want my posterity to live in a land where all of the diversity of life (not just human diversity) flourishes. I do not in any way feel obligated to squeeze in to accommodated the reproductive folly of the world at large.
3
Good reasons why Dems should not be knee jerk about limits on immigration. But I find fault with your justifications-you assert basically a popularity based rationale. Put another way, immigration decisions should be rationally based on what is best for America as a whole, not what the various interest groups think they want. Dems need to do what is best for America ,not their base--same for Republicans. That is simply traditional democratic /Jeffersonian theory--we elect representatives to have more time and knowledge to do what is best, not simply reflect ,via polls, what their voters want. Otherwise we become one large town meeting where everyone votes on everything, regardless of whether they even understand the issues. We used to be ruled that way in New England--let me tell you we soon realized that is was a horrible mistake
3
I'm sorry, but if we need the ultimate in meanness at the table to get a deal on immigration, then we are doomed. Miller does NOT represent anything close to majority opinion here and you, Ross, are excusing away his hatred and extreme views.
4
I have always been liberal on immigration, but more recently I began to take more centrist views. I work in a public hospital in NY that treats a high number of immigrants, many undocumented, at least half of whom speak no english despite having lived here for years. Many bring their parents over (65+) who can't work and then get free health care through the city or medicaid (even those who are undocumented). This costs hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars just at my hospital.
This is why I (sorry while I throw up for a second) actually AGREE with Stephen Miller on a skills-based system. Why should we allow elderly, sick people to immigrate here who can't work and use already limited healthcare dollars or people with no education who never learn english and depress wages for other poor Americans? Why not deport the undocumented alcoholics (there are many)?
I'm all for immigration, just immigration that benefits America in the modern economy. I don't think this is racist, just practical. We are no longer trying to fill empty wilderness with people like earlier in our history when we took anyone who could get here by boat.
3
Why not add David Duke and Richard Spencer to the mix? After all, that's the constituency that Miller represents.
4
So, Ross, since likely a third of the population has Socialist leanings, you’d be okay if some future Democrat President’s economic policy were steered by a Marxist? Need I mention what a third of the country thinks (or once thought) about Catholics? This is precisely what’s most wrong with our government today: way too many outliers wielding way to much influence.
4
There is absolutely no necessity for the Stephen Millers of the world. And just when I was starting to follow you regularly. And if I read another reference to native Americans, not referencing actual Native Americans, as in Indigenous, I am going to puke. Donald Trump is 3rd generation American, I’m guessing Miller is 4th, I’m 2nd generation. Anyone who had a relative come through Ellis Island is not a Native American. None of us are natives, we are descendants of people who came here, unless you are talking about actual Native Americans. Oh brother.
2
Do we really need Stephen Miller? Really? He isn't a symbol, he is real, and he affects people's actual lives. His arguments are not academic.
Let'c cut to the chase. Immigration is not simple, but some aspects of it are. We have near agreement nationally that we should not upend the lives of people who live here, for most of their lives, don't remember the country their parents came from, and never broke a law. We could solve that today.
But Miller has no impact on bringing us to agreement: he wants no one, businesses want cheap talented people, cheaper labor, agriculture needs seasonal workers. I don't like importing talented foreigners even as we cut funding for education to develop our own children. For example, we are importing doctors but refuse to increase the funding for medical residencies, creating both a shortage, and putting medical student in financial peril as they look at hundreds of thousands in debt and the potential of not being able to finish training. This helps us?
Solve the Dreamers, now. Shut Miller away in the cave he emerged from and get it done. Keep him shut away while we figure out how to do smart things like fund our own talented children to fill domestic labor needs. Fix domestic education funding, THEN we can import all the talent we need, at every level of society.
And focus our law enforcement on those employing illegal labor, abusing the H1-B visas, rather than increasing the suffering of individuals.
Not easy. But doable.
5
Illegal immigration a problem? Solved! No jobs, no immigration. Without job possibilities in the U.S,- these illegal immigrants will stay home. Who supplies these jobs? The same corporate interests that supply campaign contributions. That is why there was never agreement on a immigration policy, and probably never will be.
Stephen Miller is nothing but a temporary blemish on the face of immigration reform.
4
Having this UNELECTED, unconfirmed person at the table to discuss immigration issues makes no sense. A bill that leaves the Senate with 70 votes would.
3
Who is Steve Miller? Is he an elected official? Is he a civil servant? Is he an appointed and ratified Cabinet member?
Is he even a big donor?
No, he's none of these things. He's simply Trump's "Worm Tongue", constantly dripping hate-filled racist poison in Trump's ear.
Understand this, Ross: Steve Miller eschews negotiation and compromise with all his being. His whole life he's been the guy who gleefully fouls things up for other people, from the 13 year old kid slapping his dirty hand on a pizza so the other 13 year olds couldn't eat it, from the women he publicly destroys (or tries to) and then asks out on a date!
He has NO business at the table. Period. And if it means no deal, then Trump will go down in History as the President who out of pure meanness got viable, honorable young people killed by being sent back to dangerous countries, just to prove he's tough enough to engage in "ethnic cleansing", internationally recognized as a Crime Against Humanity.
Your 5th paragraph defies repeated US history, when unskilled immigrants flooded into our nation, and accelerated our growth from a quaint backwater into the world's first Superpower. Yet, repeating History, you, like your predecessors, fought that very immigration after your own ancestors.
When mass immigration was finally ended, circa 1920, by the end of the decade the economy crashed bigger than it ever had.
History may be names & dates, but the juxtaposition of events & their dates reveal unknown truths.
3
"...increased diversity and the distrust it sows..."
I live in Canada where the immigration rate is quite a bit higher than the US immigration rate, and the level of diversity is larger than that observed in the US. And yet we do not seem to suffer "...the distrust it sows..."
Why is this? Why are Americans so afraid?
4
Miller is a blight on the American conscious. His mere presence in the White House is an affront to all Americans. His view on immigration was warped from the beginning, and designed to appeal to trump’s base. Miller is a misfit and unqualified for any position of authority in government. But then so is trump.
4
“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”
Yeah, Miller sounds like the right guy for this job.
2
Doesn't Miller's plan also include money for the stupid wall? If so, than I can see Democrat's resistance. That wall idea is a national embarrassment and should be resisted at all costs.
1
Miller is emblematic of the catastrophic liberal mindset that wants to defame anyone who harbors legitimate concerns about our current immigration policy as a bigot. This axiom allows liberal Democrats to congratulate themselves for opposing bigotry. And it costs nothing. The only problem is that the Democrats, having lost the middle class and working class constituencies they once represented, are losing their seat at the table. And they have opened the barn door to even greater bigotry. This recognition enabled Merkel to back down on immigration policies that were creating resentment among voters. But the Democrats have ignored her example, and they are kidding themselves if they think this policy of defamation is a winning ticket. Speaking as a (closeted) liberal Democrat, if I had a bumper sticker, it would simply say: LISTEN.
2
Ross, I've blissfully managed to avoid learning much about Stephen Miller right up to the moment that clicked on this column - but what I've learned since reading the comments on it make me wish we could revoke his citizenship!
Seriously.
When I hear conservatives talk about revoking birthright citizenship, my immediate reaction is one of: be careful of what you wish for.
I mean, for instance, if Mueller discovers that Trump has been aiding Russians oligarchs in money laundering, in direct violation of policies established by previous administrations, can we revoke his birthright citizenship? Can we deport this evil clown to whichever country is willing to take him?
I confess to be being more centrist on immigration than the average lefty; to me, our primary obligation must be to naturalized Americans and legal immigrants. My view is that the reason that so many Americans remain hostile to immigration is that they sense that they have been economically abandoned by conservatives and democratic centrists ever since the Reagan devolution.
My solution to confronting this growing hostility is straight-forward: start giving a damn about the real world economic plight of naturalized Americans and legal immigrants.
I submit that when government does right by the American people, the American inevitably do right by others. But when government is obsessed with tending to the needs of corporations and high net worth individuals, Americans become extremely cranky.
10
"a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced."
The restrictionist point of view is more popular than Douthat lets on.
According to a recent Harvard poll, 68% of Americans oppose the diversity lottery. 79% favor skill/merit based immigration instead of chain migration based on family connections. 54% favor building a combination of physical and electronic barriers on the southern border. 48% support halving legal immigration, with 39% opposed. 72% want a total legal immigration number of less than 1 million per year--a cut from the current 1.2 million.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-pol...
Immigration, like single-payer healthcare and an end to our wars in the Middle East, is an issue where the preferences of our elites have overridden the clear, longstanding wishes of the American people.
6
Mr. Douthat says that immigration policy should reflect the shape of public opinion -- but notes that it is a minority (a third) who want immigration reduced and suggests that this is in part because diversity sows distrust. Why should we craft policy on the irrational fears of a minority? Shouldn't our leaders be guiding policies that are morally right, even if they challenge the fears and prejudices of a subset of the country?
11
The main driver of immigration reform should be economic, not paranoia on the right. We have an aging population that will lead to economic stagnation as experienced by other countries as well as enormous unpaid bills coming for Social Security and Medicare. We NEED more people, preferably legal. The bi-partisan bill passed by the Senate a few years back showed a $1.5B benefit by the CBO to the economy in the first 10 years. The economic benefit should be as least as important as any other reason to move forward with expanding legal immigration.
8
What if Puerto Rico were made an international haven for refugees? Hundreds of thousands have fled the island due to the devastation of--and lack of response to--Hurricane Maria. And millions are fleeing war-torn countries like Syria, while the European Union struggles to accommodate as many as they can.
True, the Puerto Rican economy is in shambles. But therein lies the opportunity. Suppose the EU were to pledge, say, $20 billion per year for 10 years to resettle refugees from Syria and elsewhere on the island. What if the U.S. did the same? I mean, if a rebuilt Puerto Rico were made more or less hurricane proof and the economy were humming due to massive investment, who wouldn't want to live in one of the most beautiful places on earth?
Some might object to "cultural imperialism," that Puerto Ricans would lose their unique identity. That's a fair criticism. But the city of San Juan would surely retain its place as a Mecca for Puerto Rican culture. And Puerto Ricans who have fled the island could be given first dibs on being repatriated once the island's economy has turned around.
A partial but important solution to the world's refugee crisis may be hiding in plain sight in the middle of the Caribbean. I wonder if world leaders have the vision to see it.
9
Yikes! You are suggesting that we take the refugees of the world and confine them on an island already inhabited by US citizens (Puerto Ricans) and let them fix up the Island's economy and create a new culture . You suggest by doing so two problems would be solved the refugees would have a place to be rather than mainland USA and the Puerto Rican economic problems no longer would exist for the USA. Cultural Imperialism indeed.
What have we come to?
Excuse me but the Greek Islands where the refugees are presently housed not so adequately because of insufficient funding from the EU.are the ideal place because unlike Puerto Rico and other places they are almost EMPTY. And we don't have hurricanes (what's hurrcane proof)?
Now you're talking! Puerto Rico can't absorb them all. And yes, I share your fear that all the islands in the Caribbean may be rendered uninhabitable due to climate change. What if the next monster hurricane makes Maria look like a waterspout? We have to hope that technological progress will lead the way to safety and prosperity.
Yes, politics is the art of finding compromises to do the nation's business, but a compromise of what? It is important to talk about the cost and the benefits of different thoughts rather than the people who represent them. Stephen Miller is a person who has reached his Peter-principle position through not his actual experience but how well he trumps Trump.
I wish Mr. Douthat would express in this column views that addressed the reasons for each view rather than writing through both sides of his pen. What I read here amounts to him wanting to have his cake and eat it too. "Yes, he is wrong, but he is right" approach is far too tentative and offers no benefits to the discussion.
Tell me the benefits of skills-based immigration vs the family-based approach, and don't forget to speak to the cost of each, both in economic terms as well as sociological terms. Then, we may get to go somewhere.
17
I read about a study not too lng ago, designed to test influences on attitudes towards immigration.
It was conducted in the very liberal suburbs around Boston. Commuters waiting on commuter train platforms were asked about immigration. Pretty much all expressed very liberal attitudes.
The researchers then had several Hispanic people wait on the platforms, and speak to each other in Spanish. No change in attitudes.
The researchers then increased the number of Spanish speakers on the platforms and on the trains, so that eventually there were a large number of Hispanic people waiting and riding on the trains, speaking Spanish to each other.
At that point, the researchers found, the previously liberal commuters expressed opinions about immigration no different from the most conservative.
There was, it seemed, some kind of tipping point based on the number of people and the perceived change to the local culture.
I think that is what has happened in many places across the US. Politicians would be wise not to ignore it.
16
So Stephen Miller is essential to the debate because even white supremacists need a place at the negotiating table?
Trump isn’t enough?
Obviously we need an immigration system that is rationally related to national ends. But rational doesn’t include uninformed bigotry. Trump tipped his hand when he sought to promote Norwegians over Africans.
The skilled workers versus unskilled workers meme is just another dog whistle.
California is a great example. The state has Silicon Valley with its H1b tech foreign work force and the Central Valley with its seasonal workforce of unskilledfarmworkers. Both are responsible for prosperity in this country. Without the farm workers, the cost of food and fiber would sky rocket.
Let’s have a rational debate on immigration. But that would mean Trump and Miller would have to be excluded.
54
"The skilled workers versus unskilled workers meme is just another dog whistle."
Your immigration system has been broken for decades, thanks in part to a long-standing refusal by past Republican and Democratic administrations that wouldn’t "have a rational debate on immigration." And despite Trump's incendiary comments, he's the first President who's finally, and belatedly, sparked enough controversy to reconcile with it.
The U.S. has an estimated 10-11 illegal aliens living within its borders, which is great news for employers, but further marginalizes and depresses wage growth for the country's most vulnerable citizens and legal residents - including minorities, low skilled workers and the poorly educated.
The argument that American employers require millions more immigrants to do jobs that Americans "won't do" is code for stating their desire for an expanded labor pool who will have no choice but to work for slave wages. When reasonable living wages are offered, more people will take more of those jobs, and if that translates to higher consumer prices, then Americans like you should at least have the moral decency to pay a little more to help your most vulnerable neighbours afford the dignity to clothe and feed themselves.
Our Canadian immigration system is not without flaws, but it's far superior to the anarchy and chaos that's taking place in the U.S.
Dear Rita,
Wouldn't life be grand if "THEY" could only understand that all those who disagree with you (or me?) should be excluded from processes of critical policy decisions.
That should read "The U.S. has an estimated 10-11 million illegal aliens..."
Every American citizen is either an immigrant or is the descendant of immigrants, with the exception of Native Americans. All of our ancestors right up to the present population contributed to the building, the development and the perpetual and permanent modernization of our nation, for both good and ill. Too often the issue of immigration becomes a conflict between primitive and ill informed ideologies. Hostility to immigration has always been present in the same sense that the history of the world is the history of the conflict between nations. I am supportive of unlimited immigration as long as it can be demonstrated that it serves the national interest and the interests of the immigrants. My doctors, dentist, accountant, attorneys, business associates represent a cross section of the Asian, Indian, European, African American populations in the US. This occurred from research to find the best professional in each profession and not as a result of some idealized notion of diversity. An African American business executive once told me that "Either you bring value to the nation or you are a cost." He was not referring just to money but to ethics, citizenship, language, culture, as well as skills, education, etc. Our history has generally served us well.
26
Here's what I want, not that anybody ever asks me.
I want an immigration rate consistent with a stable or ever so slightly declining long term U.S. population. I'll settle for "stable".
Favor persons with skills that are truly in short supply and badly needed for genuine economic reasons, such as medical doctors (a la Dean Baker). Also favor persons who have received advanced degrees in the U.S. Keep nuclear families together. Beyond that, encourage racial and ethnic diversity. Be particularly generous to refugees.
40
Immigration restrictionists who seek to cut low-skilled immigration in favor of skilled immigration ignore what is fundamental about immigration to the U.S. The aging national demographic profile along with the seasonal nature of some kinds of physical work have long made the low-skilled end of the wage spectrum of central significance to immigration.
Restricting low-skilled immigration without simultaneously creating guest worker programs produces critical labor shortages in agriculture, food processing, and often construction. Employers sometimes raise this fear to keep wages down, to be sure, but this can be policed. But there are no large pools of low-skilled labor in the U.S. to meet these demands on a sufficient scale. Worldwide, we know this requires the presence of a vast, rural working poor with access to land so they can meet some of their food needs. The U.S. just ain't got it.
Meanwhile, the production of skilled workers internally is relatively easily advanced by creating scholarship programs to target areas of need. Even with significant fertility decline, it is easier for the U.S. to address that demand internally than it is for the nation to meet its low skill labor needs.
If restrictionists like Stephen Miller (and Ross Douthat, since he harps the same theme) get their way, there will be an increase in wages in agriculture, but more to the point, there will be a labor crisis which cannot be met internally. Stephen Miller threatens our food security.
23
Skilled workers are paid to put unskilled workers out of work with things like computer vision, robot manipulation, and artificial intelligence.
It is beyond depressing how Republicans, and conservative pundits like you, Mr. Douthat, have lost all sense of decency, morality and kindness.
I thought that W Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was baloney, but then there were moments were W Bush acted upon that idea. A good example was when he gave a speech at the National Cathedral in Washington after the 9/11 tragedy.
W Bush chose to unite us, not divide us.
So now you have a horrid person, Stephen Miller, with no real experience, someone, who, like so many people in this administration -- from President Trump to Melania, to Jared to Ivanka to Hope Hicks to John Dowd to Tillerson on down -- is in over their heads, trying to deal with things that they obviously have no business dealing with.
This has made us careen from one self-made disaster to another.
But what's most glaring is the unkindness of all of it, the hatefulness, the ugliness, the crassness.
I think you've been infected, Mr. Douthat. I think you need to reflect and think whether this ugliness is worthy of our great nation, and worthy of you.
104
" the repeated failure of “comprehensive” immigration reform over the last decade and more, doomed each time by the gulf between the plans of Republican negotiators and the actual preferences of their voters."
The repeated "failure" of comprehensive immigration reform, and the resulting devastation to hard-working families, is the complete fault of one arrogant man, John Boehner.
In 2014, a bipartisan immigration bill passed the Senate. It had enough votes to pass the House. President Obama said he would sign it. However, Boehner REFUSED TO ALLOW A VOTE on the bill in the House.
One (of course, Republican) man literally held millions of people hostage to Republican xenophobic ideology (something with a long history, dating back even before the Republican bill that blocked further immigration of Italians and Eastern European Jews in the 1920s, trapping the Jews in Europe and sealing their fate in the Holocaust)
Devotion to family and love of, and gratitude to, America are the great "skills" and gift, along with their hard work, that generations of immigrants (including recent refugees) have contributed to American communities, skills that are needed today far more than whatever "skills" Miller values.
30
How can you say that the foreign born population is at a record high? What about the 1600s? 1700s? 1800s? 1900?
Ross's nativist assertion is false. Here are the facts.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/10/03/what-percentage-...
Note that the percent of people who are foreign born today is lower than it was in 1920, and lower than it was when today's xenophobe's ancestors were allowed to come here, including Stephen Miller's non-English speaking Grandmother.
71
It boggles my mind how often Ross Douthat has made this same argument over the years. I get the distinct impression that he is allergic to reading anything on immigration that doesn't conform to his preconceptions.
1
Good proposal; Miller's presence might even help sell a practical and somewhat fair political solution to the "base." The art of the "possible," and all that. Remember, the Great Emancipator once favored enforcement of the vile and immoral fugitive slave laws, because they were the standing law of the land. Compromises must be made lest moral dilemma lead to violent confrontation. That said, Miller's ostensible about face on the matter reveals an opportunism, which has and will again, lead to other disasters for the commonweal.
32
There is no compromising with those who threaten violence. It amounts to appeasement, only delaying the day of reckonong.
One can recognize a real negotiation by the complete absence of violence and threats, and the presence of genuine arrays of choices benefitting both sides.
Trump and Miller are incapable of negotiating anything, because they are incapable of giving up the pleasure they get from threatening others. The sooner Congress accepts this, the sooner they will stop wasting all our time.
2
Sounds like a path to me, and I have never voted anything by Democratic. Those in favor of immigration (and I am) tell us about the skills immigrants bring, so let's act on that. Maybe if it was Miller alone, without Trump, at the table, we'd get someplace: Like, "This is the guy you guy you have to work with."
1
The rich just got a large and generous tax cut. Let those whose businesses benefitted the most from the employment of immigrants (documented and undocumented) pay for the legalization and/or amnesty programs for the ones who deserve to stay. Let them pay for increased border security, and if they really want a wall - let them pay for it. Let them sort this out amongst themselves and let us know what they come up with. The employers of undocumented immigrants have been skirting and breaking the law for years to build their fortunes, and now they've elected a president and a Congress who want us to do something about immigration via our taxes and the building of a border wall while we forego infrastructure repairs, improved education and health care for all.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
38
“...increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics.”
Yes, Mr Douthat, like you, I am VERY distrustful of diversity. Whenever I see a new Canadian restaurant in my neighborhood, or learn that there is a new teacher from Norway at the local school, or overhear those blonde men and women speaking a language that is not English in the coffee shop, or learn that my company just hired someone from Holland, I become very distrustful. That is the diversity you’re talking about, right?
56
It is abundantly obvious that Stephen Miller and his boss are obstacles to fixing immigration.
Was Ross on another planet the last 3 weeks?
There was a deal that was agreed to by all sides. It was torpedoed by Miller’s pouring of poison in Trump’s ear.
Claiming as Ross does that this Miller, who is a verbal bully and an arrogant lout is in any way necessary to the process of immigration reform couldn’t be more clueless.
69
There are more than 6.5 million refugees in the world right now. Think of all the people in California and Texas, and have them flee their homes out of fear or necessity.
And don't give them a place to go.
Mr. Douthat, you think liberals want to steamroll restrictionists, to pretend they're not there.
In reality, I think restrictionists want to pretend that there aren't 6.5 million refugees in the world right now, and they don't want to discuss the difficult issues surrounding helping these people return home or find new homes.
Next, comes the millions of people looking for better opportunity for their families. Many are low-skilled; and as past immigration has shown over and over again, they'll strive to do better for their children and their children's children. Those are the people who built the American dream.
But a restrictionist at the table is just another head-in-the-sand refusing to address the needs of refugees, just as we failed to discuss refugees in the last election. It's certainly unchristian, and I think it's immoral, and I'm ashamed of how we're talking about immigration -- taking the brightest and the best -- without addressing the needs of those millions of families driven from their homes.
47
There are 65 million refugees in the world ten times more than your thoughtful comment states. We need to continue fixing our broken planet not just secure the 1%'s wealth!
1
And over a decade ago, under W, the US recognized that Climate Change was our number one threat to national security because it would result in tens of millions more refugees due to loss of livable habitats, either by rising seas, lack of fresh water, or ruined environment.
Last month, however, the Trump Cartel removed climate change from our list of threats, ignoring reality in order to make deregulation seem acceptable.
The Trump plan is to grab what wealth we can and wall ourselves off from the rest of the world and let them deal with all the problems we will continue to contribute to.
2
You are off by a factor of 10 in your otherwise excellent comment. Doctors Without Borders reports over 60 million displaced persons worldwide.
Ross, you talk about "failure of 'comprehensive' immigration reform over the last decade and more, doomed each time by the gulf between the plans of Republican negotiators and the actual preferences of their voters." But just three paragraphs earlier you say that only about a third of Americans want immigration reduced. The "actual preferences" of American voters lean towards sensible compromise. The gulf is between the plans of Republican negotiators and a radical minority of voters who have captured the GOP and are preventing any workable solutions.
The fundamental problem here is gerrymandering, which results in reasonable GOP candidates being "primaried" out of general elections. When you rig elections, what you get is a Congress that doesn't represent the people. Duh.
35
What Miller's critics are right about is that he wants to repaint America white, period. The concerns of Miller's that Douthat ticks off are fake issues. Trump's circle pretends to believe in them because they act as a pretty backdrop for the malicious white supremacist rhetoric that did so much to put Trump in the White House. We don't need Miller at the table anymore than we need our vicious president and the rest of his cronies. The only way this country can take another step forward is to get rid of the lot of them. A good temporary measure would be to elect a Democratic congress in November in order to corral these beasts until they can be properly expelled in 2020.
26
At least as much effort should be made to identify and punish the employers of illegal immigrants as identifying and punishing the illegal immigrants themselves. At that point a fair debate could be had. Hit the people who play fast with the rules and hear them howl. How refreshing would that be? Could be a template to solve a lot of our problems that have led to inequality.
18
Mr. Douthat, sorry, but you are just plain wrong politically.
Only 30% want restrictions a la Miller. They need to accept that they live in a democracy where two-thirds don’t agree with them, and get over it. As a small minority, they get the full blame for obstructing the will of the majority for more than a decade. Please don’t « trump up » blame for the Democrats, you are smarter than that.
I don’t really want to address Miller’s twisted notions on the merits, but they would have the opposite effect to what he intends. His ‘merit’ based criteria would result in even more flocks of Indian and Asian IT specialists coming here and undercutting US IT specialist wages, or require overtly racist and nationalist criteria to keep them out. At which point the right wing will scream unconstitutional!
Because cheaper IT help is exactly what large corporations want, in the age when every company depends more and more on IT. I know this game, I am a retired IT exec. So the Koch machine is cranking up the propoganda (such a satisfylingly loaded word, ‘chain’), to whip up racial prejudice in the base to keep on obstructing the majority.
Please do not be taken in by Miller’s truly evil ‘deal’. It is not good for our country, or our economy, to have a load of single men here without families, a la the construction industry in the Middle East. Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors being waved in front of your face by the masters of manipulation in the West Wing.
36
Let me see, the 8 billion dollar wall to nowhere, paid for by the mexican government?
Yeah, what a strategic and effective policy decision.
In exchange, we can make sure that immigrants who come here have no family ties-- that will make them feel like scared Republicans and vote out of fear.
15
I have no problem with reducing immigration. But I abhor brainless all-or-nothing policy. The classic example are the Dreamers who:
- Did not break the law
- Often know only the US (deportation would be cruel)
- Are small in numbers
If we can't make a sane/benevolent exception for the Dreamers then we've succumbed to the all-or-nothing doomsday position of extremists like Stephen Miller.
24
I would be hard-pressed to think of anyone we need less than we need Stephen Miller. His policies are pure malice.
46
Trump is essentially Stephen Miller's mouthpiece and once Trump fully realizes he is being upstaged through Miller's leaks and snarky comments made on deep background, Miller too will be shown the door.
Why not put Miller on the cover of a magazine whose cover Trump covets and speed up the process? It would be doing the nation a favor. Then, Miller could join the Bannon cabal or move on to be another Fox new talking head raging against diversity lottery visa holders.
17
While I can't say if it was cynical, Mr. Douthat's use of the word "amnesty" as a way to frame the debate is very telling. By definition, amnesty means all possible fines and penalties are wiped out. In the political debate of immigration, on the far right, amnesty means anything less than self or forced deportation for anyone without papers (including children). While clearly the position of Steven Miller, amnesty is not the position of moderate Republicans or Democrats. Leaving an extremist position out of the current debate in Congress isn't ignoring some voters. It is common sense.
8
In theory negotiations with political opposites sound reasonable. But Miller lies. He won't concede that immigrants help the economy more than they cost, for example, and won't consider programs to help integrate immigrants into the economy in a rational way. Douthat suggests the equivalent of negotiating climate policy with a climate change denier. How?
45
Yes, the bottom line is that all the sanctimony about what a land of wine and roses it is here is a draw to maintain a labor surplus to exploit.
I don't like extremes or extremists so I'm not if favor of unlimited immigration or shutting off immigration. But our current system is not working because it has been cobbled together like a house of cards. Some common sense measures might include mandatory E-verify so businesses which flout immigration control are severely penalized. Another might be to study and adopt the best features of the Canadian system which appears to have employed thought rather than emotion in its policy. We need immigration to sustain our economy and our democratic values. But we should not be overrun. Also, I want the people who have been patiently and legally waiting in line for years to be given preference for consideration over those who have jumped the line.
15
The whole US legal structure is an encrustation of band-aids applied over generations.
It might be said with a degree of reluctance,
But Stephan is the T.P of the 21st Century.
Essential !!!
1
The view of the public opinion is far more open minded than those accepting Miller's take on immigration into the fold. He argues that anyone that qualifies as a potential approved immigrant allowed to enter the USA must speak english, which is not a qualification that would limit anyone with a decent education regardless of ethnicity, but eliminates the possibility of bringing in his grandmother who spoke only Yiddish. The guy is a xenophobe who won't even acknowledge his own family history, and he seems to lean towards a limited policy that leans in the favor of his skin color, and he looks kind of white.
While the argument that a majority of the public should consider and be sensitive to the misinformed or outright racist opinions of Miller and at this moment, Trump's Cro-magnon immigration policy ( they weren't White but the were supposedly intellectually challenged verses Homosapiens ) , this is not the time to be considerate of these straight up racist views. It's time to call a spade a spade and stand up for both racial and ethnic equality.
24
Racism and bigotry must never be given a seat at the table. Same for white nationalists/supremacists. Period.
Restrictionists as you call them may not be racist or bigoted but just want a reduction in numbers. That can be part of any discussion.
And please stop with the often used slur "elite" especially in this instance. It's called human decency and respect.
62
Thank you! I admire your adjective slur about the use of "elite." I commented here: The elite are actually the plutocrats and oligarchs who are reigning over this country with the court jester Miller's help and encouragement. Try considering yourself an elite on the salary of a university faculty lecturer who genuinely values the truth.
Please explain that "Period."
Heck, as a liberal, I don't care whether or not he is at the bargaining table. I want to see him on TV. Lots and lots of him on TV. I want everyone to see and listen to him spew. I want him to be the face of the white house reality show. The creepiest of the creeps. More interviews of Stephen, please. I don't really even care what he talks about.
But seriously, do you realize how far we have fallen when we get a supposedly serious column about a clown like that being allowed to weigh in on people's lives?
Shame.
1184
Can not agree more.
8
Could not agree more. Get the whole Trump presidential circus out front and center, even if takes more than three rings. Free admission.
Put Miller, Conway, Pruitt, Zinke, Nielsen and all the rest of Trump's sycophants, enablers, and exploiters-for-personal-advantage under the glare of the public spotlight, up on the debate stage, in the political arena. Include as well all of Trump's outcasts, Flynn, Priebus, Bannon, Ross and others.
Make them talk and answer questions. Make them be themselves, expose their true selves and their beliefs. Then, yes, all but the self-blinded will see and know them as the "creepiest of the creeps," the real deplorables of American politics.
It is what must be done to the alt-right as well, of which clown Miller is a certified member. That old expression about sunshine being the best disinfectant is ever so apt for these times. Lets clean up by cleaning them out.
9
Exactly! Thank you Runaway for stating what should be obvious. Mr. Douthat's argument neglects that our government has been wrangling with the issue of immigration without any progress, largely due to voices on the extreme right who won't compromise.
Unfortunately, Stephen Miller appears to be dictating Trump's immigration policy.
6
Perhaps rethinking the numbers for the lottery system makes some sense. But eliminating 'chain migration' is foolish.
America's resident physician programs and its graduate science programs draw heavily from overseas applicants. Once credentialed, these people will not remain here if they cannot bring family members.
Furthermore, 'chain migration' is perhaps the best way for immigrants to build up a 'natural' support system.
22
They will stay as long as they can bring spouses and children, just not everyone else.
1
The Republicans want a merit based system, not a family based system.
What about part of a merit based-system that includes a major plus for having family here already? That seems the best of both worlds.
A natural support system includes more than spouses and children. And most Asian cultures expect children to care for their elders.
1
My wife works at a community health clinic that serves immigrants. I can tell you there are many who have zero skills, only native language skills, pre-modern cultural sets, and insular mindsets. They are as babes-in-the-woods here.
I can see that the USA is doing much for them. Except for adding 'diversity', they are not doing much for this country. So the question is: How much do we want to give, and how much do we want to get?
10
Miller will be in the room because every time Trump wades into the immigration negotiations without Miller, he agrees to things that his racist base doesn't want. When the meeting ends Trump is reminded by Miller that the farm has been given away and Trump makes a u-turn. It's a problem for Trump because he knows who cleans the rooms in his hotels and it isn't white Americans.
15
How white of you to concede that potential economic and humanitarian benefits are still considerable. The problem with allowing the racists like Miller at the decision making table is that the Trump presidency is so malign and so unrepresentative, but singularly temporary. The lasting harm, much like the appointment of a retrograde justice, blights our very democracy, what our country stands for, and who we are as Americans, not white Americans. It's an important discinction, one that unfortunately our writer is unable to grasp.
27
Ok, but what about somebody who lives in a country where death squads patrol the streets? Should we advise them to hunker down, get a degree in computer coding and then we'll talk? Why not fix the process so that people can be legally accepted or rejected in less than 10 years?
16
Reason number 2,020 why a president ought never be a political rookie.
16
I completely disagree with the immigration views of President Miller.
20
Miller has a long history of bigotry and of sending dog whistles to the alt-right. Suggesting that he ought to be at the table when immigration reform is discussed is like suggesting that segregationists ought to be at the table when civil rights are discussed. The mere fact that Miller reflects a strain of public opinion doesn't qualify him, or any other bigot, to be involved in the formulation of public policy. And, by the way, Mr. Douthat, I am not a member of any elite.
35
Perhaps another way to view the Stephen Miller fight against immigration other than just racism is a fight against modernity. By that I mean that nationalism becomes less and less in a world that is globalizing at a pace and level that is unimaginable. Every business day trillions of dollars circumnavigate the globe without border restrictions as investors search every nook and cranny for opportunity. Modern telecommunications allow all of us to utilize not just goods but services from anywhere. For example, my income taxes are done by someone in Indonesia (I think), the alarm company I use for one of my businesses is run by a call center in India, so if there is a break in a person in India calls the police here to notify them. The fact is that while the anti-immigrationists worry about someone crossing the border to pick winter vegetables and fruit so much so that they want to build a massive wall, the much larger and more significant "migration" is really "tele-migration" of which there is no answer for. Technology always has the last word.
9
I am a life-long liberal.
But I don't see a big problem with the immigration proposal articulated here. It is a compromise that I could live with.
It solves the problem of the Dreamers.
What compromise would liberals accept? I have heard of none, unless you count throwing a little more money into Border Patrols a compromise (which it isn't).
Is that the current state of affairs? Liberals and Democrats being unwilling to accept the reality of the need for true compromise?
7
I agree with you Dan. One has to admit that illegal immigrants have depressed the wage scale of the middle class. They work for less than minimum wages and are preyed upon by wealthy contractors.
They are taking American jobs because Americans will not work for those pitiful wages. If illegals are not available, American wages of the working class will increase. Supply and demand, Folks.
The goal was to solve the problem of the dreamers, this bill does that.
It's childish to think it's your way or the highway.
We will never solve the problem of illegal immigration because too many large and small industries benefit with the current illegal group in the country now. Really cheap labor that doesn't need expensive health care benefits or Social Security payouts. A labor force that can not protest against poor working environments, unsafe working conditions,or non-payment of wages.
Our immigration could be solved fairly easily if we extended green cards to workers and then required employers to hire only legal workers or be fined. These workers would have to pay taxes and would receive benefits. We need workers of all kinds.
Also the US Govt. needs to work harder to help in the countries that these immigrants are running from. A prime example is the US island of Puerto Rico. I would think most of the Puerto Ricans would rather stay on the island but because little has been done to help after the hurricane many are coming to the mainland. Has the US Govt. done anything to correct the corruption on the island?
9
"The foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high, and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." Mr. Douthat, it's disingenuous of you to state this as a fact without also noting that this distrust has been stoked relentlessly by the Republican Party and its messages of fear, hate, and ignorance since the Reagan era. And stating that income inequality and immigration are a zero-sum equation ignores the looting of our economy to benefit the wealthy, yes, even in California. The economic insecurity of white wage-earners is not caused by immigrants; it's caused by greed and unchecked power with no regard for the common good. A robust economy and diversity can coexists when money circulates instead of pooling at the extremities - and yes, such a participative economy could accommodate immigrants just fine. Sheesh, you sound like Brooks today.
18
Finally, a reasoned argument! Hopefully this uncommon sense will take hold.
2
Stephen Miller's defining core quality is that he loathes himself, and he has probably done that since early childhood. His response to his self-loathing is to shout from the treetops that he is superior to others and that he deserves more than others. His shouting has allowed him to be the darling of those who feel that they also deserve more than others--the same people who feel that they should not have to clean up after themselves.
13
The Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for quite a few years. I haven't seen any legislation concerning immigration to come from that body in all those years. So, I have to question Mr. Douhat's assumption that conservatives often seek E-verify enforcements. It certainly hasn't been manifest by House Republicans. (If a wasted voted is the argument-how many votes to repeal ACA.)
4
The question is not whether the 1/3 of the electorate that supports immigration restriction should be heard. It is whether they should have veto power over the other 2/3 of the population. Yes, there are those in the anti-immigration corner who believe immigration is leading to income inequality (and a high GINI coefficient) but income inequality is growing rapidly in the states with low immigration. Employers who seek the lowest possible labor costs are going to do so whether the laborers are undocumented immigrants being paid substandard wages under the table or robotics that require a one-time large capital investment. Don’t take it from me, spends some time reading the technology pages.
Immigrants do not cause income inequality they just suffer from it more than most.
12
My understanding of the position of Miller and other Republican hard liners is that their strategy is to make Democrats an offer they decide they must refuse, then expel Dreamers en masse while blaming Democrats for their expulsion. If Miller sits at the table and he probably will (in the end, Trump decides who negotiates for him) Miller will not be looking for an agreement but looking to anger Democrats to the point they walk out.
This is pretty inhuman but fits what courtiers of princes do for their masters. So Democrats, if they can get the mercurial Trump to yes, will need to keep reminding Miller and Trump that Miller's truculence suggests he is out to sabotage any deal.
If, against all expectations, Miller is genuinely trying to get a deal Ross Douthat's point becomes valid; Miller could play a helpful role in selling a deal to Trump's base. Just don't count on it.
If negotiators can come to a Grand Bargain before February 8 fine - but if not, "take the cash and let the credit go"(Rubiyat) a deal which saves Dreamers before the White House starts expelling them.
3
When Stephen Miller said that “the powers of the president will not be questioned,” what he was really saying was that “the powers of Stephen Miller will not be questioned.” He is the most sinister character in the White House today. His outsize influence on Trump is corrosive and dangerous.
20
Miller doesn't get it. We have wave after wave of immigrants come in and in each and every wave there have been no-nothing's. You want to grow get the people in here.
1
The cancer in--yes, in--the presidency is Stephen Miller. No argument and neither side gets stronger with him.
11
If representation for white supremacists is necessary at the immigration reform table, perhaps we need the Madoffs of the world negotiating FINRA regulations or the Eric Robert Rudolphs weighing in on reproduction rights. Being a sufferer of diversity-induced stress appears to be Miller's sole qualification.
12
How can you write an Op-Ed piece like this without revealing your contacts and relationship with Stephen Miller? You can discuss the policy principles or you can discuss the person, but it is disingenuous to conflate the two.
6
Are you suggesting that the absence of any e-verify provision represents progress? I think it’s simply that the times allow the GOP to be candid that they’re on the side of employers/corporations that benefit by exploiting undocumented labor.
2
"Restrictionists"? is that what they're called now. No worry. Miller and Kelly will be at the table. You sound like they are not smack in the middle of power.
"But if you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented..." then you should have undocumented immigrants at the table also. Obviously there would have to be guarantees they would be there free from the possibility of an ICE invasion of the office. Or of being arrested as they left the meeting.
12
The tragedy of the Trump presidency for America stems from the Democratic Party drifting to the left of where most of the voters are.
"white resentment" fails to explain why an African American won the presidency
twice in 2008 and 2012, while a white Democrat lost the presidency in 2016.
Clearly other factors were at work besides "white resentment".
The Democrats have drifted to the left of the electorate.
1
And yet a majority of those who cast votes in the last election supported the Democratic Party candidate. It seems that, like the President, your rhetoric doesn't match reality.
5
Since when did " the shape of public opinion" ( as opposed to the minority president's base) figure in any decision coming from these people?
3
Re this column’s content, many of my fellow commenters have already ably and concisely highlighted both points worthy of consideration and those of deeper concern.
I’d like to just thank Mr Douthat for working in a subtle Douglas Adams reference. It is not often that the Hitchhiker’s Guide shows up, even very much in passing, in the pages of the NYT.
(Although locked in a cabinet [preferably itself in a disused lavatory] with a sticker warning “Beware of the Leopard” might not be a bad long term solution for how to deal with Mr Miller.)
3
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
There's a lot in there about skills and points, isn't there? Isn't there?
3
Just what is the 'elite' consensus and who are these 'elites'?
Is there a requirement somewhere that conservatives have to constantly flog the us vs. them (elites) meme to convey a false underdog status? Don't conservatives believe their arguments can stand on their own without insinuating some sort of victimhood?
5
So according to Douthat, 2/3 of voters are in favor of maintaining current immigration levels or increasing them. And polls show that over 90% of voters are in favor of legalizing Dreamers. Yet he argues that what is really needed is to give in to the small minority of those who feel “uneasy” about the greater diversity that immigration brings, and those who loudly agree with the President’s racist outbursts.
6
Stephen Miller is a far right racist. I think Trump at the table is one racist too many and we certainly don't need two.
12
What we need at the table are people with the wisdom that comes with life experience, not an arrogant 32 year old ideologue.
7
Economic growth is identically equal to the growth in the labor force, plus productivity increases. No amount of white-supremacist drivel can change this immutable relationship. Present fertility rates tell us that the U.S. labor force can only grow through immigration. The Trump administration needs more people educated in business and economics, and fewer crackpot ideologues.
4
Plenty of hatred for Steve Miller in these comments. But Douthat wrote a completely reasonable column without spewing venom, unlike a lot of letter writers. Thanks Ross. I appreciate your calm voice and lack of overheated rhetoric.
Stephen Miller is a pathological bigot. He is clueless about what happens in the corners of the towns and cities where immigrants have sustained both the economy and society by occupying housing that would have otherwise become abandoned and go up in flames.
You may ask where else are Miller and Trump clueless?
Trump has bleated out the term "chain migration" because one or two terrorists came here as a part of the process and therefore every person who came because of a family affiliation is a high probability terrorist. That is demagoguery, a classic GOP tactic that stokes the uninformed imagination.
What makes you think that a highly educated young Asian who went to school here will seek to stay here if he knows he will forever be isolated from family because he could not sponsor a bother or a cousin or a mom because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller have decided familial relationship is to be an would be an excluded class.
Anti-chain migration caught hold because more than one person has not thought it through. And Donald Trump is not one to do that since he is a bigot and has been influenced from the start by both Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller from the outset. Bannon said from the beginning "why let hem in?" And on day one Trump signed the Muslim immigration and travel ban.
Trump never backs down when it comes to pandering to his uninformed base and the GOP narrative. He lacks American character and is an extreme opportunist and harmful person.
10
Miller would far rather blow things up than work constructively. Just like Trump, Bannon, etc etc etc. There are possibly productive conversations to be had with other Congresspeople, but not with Miller, who has the arrogance of youth and doesn't know what he doesn't know.
Keep him out.
3
Ross, you're becoming my favorite NYT columnist. Who'da thunk? Dems can't recognize a solution when it stares them in the face. The trade of immigration reform in exchange for $25 billion for stupid wall is an offer the Dems should grab. $25 billion is pocket change to get a fix to this problem. Who cares if the wall is stupid? They can't seem to get through their heads that playing to their "base" is completely irrelevant if they can't retain or flip 28 House Seats and 8 Senate seats next fall. Most of these elections are in Districts where their "base" is not a majority, regardless of how energized it may be.
1
Wasting 25 billion in taxpayer dollars on an unworkable and unnecessary boondoggle somehow doesn't seem like a "solution" to me.
1
Miller has absolutely no qualifications for "leading" immigration policy. He has a long personal history of what comes close to a persecution complex, even though he comes from a privileged background. His post-undergraduate experience consists of working for right-wing nuts Michelle Bachman and John Shadegg, followed by a stint as communications director for then Senator Sessions. He has made numerous statements that show a glaring ignorance of the law and the rule of law. He is guided 100% by xenophobia. I am surprised he hasn't called for returning the Statue of Liberty to France. It is a sick joke that he is impacting what needs to be a serious discussion of immigration policy.
11
Ross: Do you have any evidence that Stephen Miller is actually well-schooled on immigration facts and policies. His entire, brief, background in politics and government is being a political spokesman, so why shouldn't Sarah Huckabee Sanders be in on the negotiations, as well? His call to conservatism came from reading a propaganda book by NRA chief Wayne LaPierre. and it appears his main views on immigration are emotional and focused on the joy of trolling liberal views on the subject. Maybe Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones should be at the negotiating table, too. Or maybe you can chart for us Mr. Miller's intellectual history on his curriculum vitae.
635
Any curriculum related to Miller would include a thick syllabus on how to avoid him.
Mr. Miller's political career is evolving through a classic strategy: he took a contrarian opinion on a hot-button issue, stuck to this opinion, and is now riding the tidal wave of a shifting public opinion. Of the only immigration fact that matters to politics, namely public opinion, Mr. Miller is no doubt extremely well informed through his access to Cambridge Analytica. A recent Harvard-Harris poll for example suggested that a vast majority of likely voters want reduced levels of immigration, and as many would like zero levels of immigration as those who would like to maintain the status-quo. It is very important for the Left to understand these facts, if they would like to win in a meaningful way. All signs are currently pointing to a democratic party that will continue to sweep the issue under the rug, and as a result likely will find itself with more political losses.
`Miller is a 30-year-old policy wunderkind...When the so-called Gang of Eight introduced a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013, Sessions played a key role in killing it; when the bill passed the Senate, his aide Miller literally wrote the 23-page handbook that House members were given on how to fight the deal.`
https://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2016/jeff-sessions-stephen-...
I almost can't believe your heroic call to be pragmatic. Heaven forbid that we ask everyone to develop policy around our shared humanity, decency and doing the right thing. Of this I am sure, MLK day will never be rivaled by the National Holiday celebrating Stephen Miller's birthday.
10
There is no serious doubt that immigrants enrich America. However, immigration is also a major driver of the relentless population growth of the US. the population has doubled over my lifetime. It seems that many of the externalities of this population growth are not included in the economic analyses of the influence of immigration. Thus what is an optimal population level for the country is a topic that should be up for discussion. More people bring more pollution, greater use of natural resources, declines of wildlife, etc. It is possible to have a growing economy, increasing standard of living, and a stable or declining population.
2
It's tragic the US wasn't as selective about immigrants as Mr. Miller wants when his ancestors came to this country.
31
The current situation was exacerbated by decades of declining foreign aid. The kind of aid that builds schools and especially water treatment facilities or in some cases desalination operations. A story in last week’s Times exposed the problem of water scarcity in places like Syria, Yemen and Iran. There could be as many as 33 countries like them by 2040. Water scarcity puts populations on the move. According to the UN, there are currently 65 million people living outside of their homelands simply or primarily because there isn’t enough water to farm and grow the crops needed. Syria’s collapse of wheat farming precedes the civil war by only a couple of years. The solution to our immigration problem isn’t restriction, it’s thinking outside of the box and helping nations that need the help to succeed. The Right calls it nation building and makes it an epithet and that might be the central issue overall.
11
There's one enormous pice that you have left out of the discussion.
Stephen Miller is one sick pup.
It takes a real psychological sickness for the grandchild of a Holocaust survivor to show such antipathy toward immigrants and refugees. His own family is horrified.
Face it, the guy even *looks* like Goebbels, to whom he is frequently compared.
His presence in our government is a sign of sickness in the nation. That he is so young and so vehemently filled with hate, while writing policy and being so close to the head of state should concern any true patriot.
108
You clearly missed the point of the article; it does not argue that Steven Miller is a nice guy. On the contrary, the point is that it would be stupid to wait around for a nice guy to show up before making a deal....The nice guy may never come...
1
I think you missed the point. There was a call for decency and relevance in making policy. Milker offers neither .
4
ELLEN: Being the grandchild of a Holocaust survivor has nothing to do with the ongoing debate, and discourteous and rude to even mention it,Mr. Miller.is well aware of his lineage.Present dispute centers around proprietorship. Do citizens own their country or not, and do we have the right to determine who comes in and who doesn't, since taxpayer is paying the tab. Do we not have enough poor and needy in this country, those living in sub standard housing,going hungry, working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table for themselves and their pets?Thought of those 12 people who perished in that blaze in the apt. building in the Bronx and thought that if De Blasio had been taking care of business instead of continually genuflecting to the real estate lobby, a significant source of campaign contributions, building might have been made fireproof years ago, rather than a FIRETRAP which it turned out to be.Between 1929 and 1965 there was no immigration to this country, and country was no worse off, actually better since years were used to assimilate those who had come from abroad and living on US soil.Just 1 question: Where do you think Mark Zuckerberg, apostle of diversity, sends his kids to school and does in live in a sociologically variegated neighborhood, or in a wealthy enclave?Same questions could be formulated to much of the liberal media who preach diversity but do not live it.
1
Look at Stephen Miller's actual biography. Having him making executive branch policy and writing "Presidential" speeches is a national embarrassment.
278
I am not going to look at HIS past. I am more interested in OUR future.
It’s a fool who doesn’t research who they’re dealing with!
"It’s also clear that many immigration restrictionists are influenced by simple bigotry — with the president’s recent excrement-related remarks a noteworthy illustration."
Yes, many "restrictionists" certainly are influenced by bigotry. Trump and Miller both have a well documented history of bigotry. So why use the word "restrictionist" when the two people driving the debate can be more fittingly described as "racist". After all, it is Trump's racism that makes any type of deal unlikely.
If you believe that "restrictionists" is missing the point and that "racists" is a much more germane description, then this revised sentence seems more reasonable, doesn't it?
"If you’re committed to the view that "racists" can and must be steamrolled, you’ll respond to this offer the way many Democrats have .
People with honorable intentions can disagree about immigration policies. Wanting less immigration does not make someone a racist. The problem is that Trump and Miller are dishonorable racists. Perhaps a deal can be reached, but don't ask Democrats to make believe that Trump and Miller are negotiating in good faith.
103
I think your point is that voters with less favorable opinions regarding immigration should be represented, correct? Do you really think this is an underrepresented view in the Republican party? You think that the 1/3 of voters who want less immigration haven't been taken *seriously enough* and that is why the remaining supermajority has achieved no legislation whatsoever? Someone please get Mr. Douthat a civics textbook, please.
61
You misunderstand the deal on the table: the Trump-Miller offer is in exchange for the money for the wall, nothing else. No wall, no deal.
34
One would think that even restrictionists deserve a better representative at the negotiations table than the abhorrent Stephen Miller.
66
I'm confused as to why this article seems a bit peeved that Stephen Miller's chance to shape immigration policy is rightly resented by so many people.
Mr. Douthat writes;
"If you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented, you might consider making a counteroffer"
But is this the way that the President and his party went about repealing "Obama Care", or recently overhauling the tax code? Indeed where was bi-partisanship from the GOP at any point in the previous president's two terms?
More to the point:
"About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced".
When two thirds of the country are opposed to the ideas of Stephen Miller and his ilk - including presumably our racist President - it's just wrong to categorize a clear majority of the country as elitist - or even unfair to the likes of Stephen Miller. The numbers speak for themselves. This is one tail which shouldn't be wagging the dog!
Opportunity has obviously called for Mr Miller - the rest of us would be fools to let him foist his nasty, minority views on the entire country.
764
According to a recent Harvard poll, 68% of Americans oppose the diversity lottery. 79% favor skill/merit based immigration instead of chain migration based on family connections. 54% favor building a combination of physical and electronic barriers on the southern border. 48% support halving legal immigration, with 39% opposed. 72% want a total legal immigration number of less than 1 million per year--a cut from the current 1.2 million.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-pol...
1
Tom, how many of those people in that poll have actually given much thought to the consequences of their positions? Polling half thought out positions during times of much rancor and anger like we have now yields the same result as the massive drive to invade Iraq on the basis of false information did a few years ago.
2
Using your logic, oooo, more than 2/3 of the country do NOT want immigration increased above the current rate. Why should the majority of us let a slim minority foist their views on the rest of us? Doesn't everyone have the right to have their voices heard? See how it works when you play with stats, oooo?
What a sad state of affairs that a person like Miller is shaping the country's policy. A creature who as a student campaigned for the right to litter as he pleased. Disgraceful.
77
An immigration restrictionist might need to be at the table, but it shouldn't be Stephen Miller. He has the same "nyah nyah nyah can't HEAR you!" conversational style as the president. I could see him ruining the negotiation just because he could. Sure, widen the discussion, but everyone going into the room should want a deal to come out at the end. Plus, a modicum of respect for fellow human beings, regardless of nation of origin, would be nice.
48
Certainly immigration policy should be open to criticism and debate. Reformists have a decent argument to make about changing from a lottery to more merit based system. Restrictionists could be right to worry about rapid influxes of new-comers for a number of reasons: trouble with assimilation and advancement, stresses on public services, and yes, even social unrest due to widespread prejudice.
But giving racists like Stephen Miller a seat at the negotiating table is a giant step too far. His goal isn't a fair policy or a better country--it's just for the country to be as white as possible. Any restricionist argument from him is made in bad faith. In fact, non-racist restrictionists should insist they not be represented by Miller, or people like him, lest they be ignored entirely.
For the truth is, with one third of the country ok with the current rate of immigration, and another third in favor of more, the restrictionists will eventually find themselves ignored if they do not find a reasonable compromise soon.
20
Let's not forget the orphaned refugee children. Our actions in the Middle East
have, no doubt, created many.
19
Stephen Miller is also a couple generations away from immigrants who came here seeking a brighter future.
15
But why Stephen Miller? He is an ignorant, jejune ideologue with the subtlety of a brickbat . Even if one wants draconian reform it needs to be carried out with some political savvy. Mr. Miller has none. He damages his own cause with his strident, sophomoric rhetoric. This is a little snake who wormed his way into Trump's inner circle and will end on the ash heap. And Trump will likely be the one to toss him there when it is clear that he has become a liability--just as Trump has treated everyone else who has been too close to him and knows his secrets.
51
"...so Miller gets his cuts to low-skilled immigration..." but the WH has been telling us that Trump is the one making all the decisions. HIS cuts? MILLER'S cuts? Really? Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
26
Stephen Miller does not belong in government. Any government, anywhere.
65
You are much too charitable to Miller. He, like Steve Bannon--advocate absolute policies when it comes to immigration. They advocate a white nationalist state. If you are saying that in order to reach a 'balanced' bargain, those voices should be heard at the table, surely this country has already lost. But at least the true colours of a large portion of the population are self-evident now.
29
No. This is a nonstarter. There is absolutely no necessity for Stephen Miller, especially if you're negotiating for the lives of people whose skin is not white. Period.
44
I have one problem with the merit based system. So if you have a technical degree for example, you're a better candidate for MAGA than say, a fruit vendor who works dawn till dusk to provide for his family? Who's to say that fruit vendor would not thrive in our country and be a model citizen?
39
And that his children wouldn't grow up to be doctors?
Thank you for this. I feel the same way about the “merit” argument. It does not sit well with me.
2
Whether or not each would be a model citizen is not the point. Low-skilled immigrant workers are having a serious impact on wages, which has a direct impact on wages of low-skilled American workers. Their standard of living is now in jeopardy and it is why many of them voted for Trump. Unfortunately, many Americans are choosing NOT to study science and technical and math and engineering degrees and without these there would be a decline in research & development and in innovation. So yes, a merit-based immigration system is what is needed right now in order to : 1. protect the wages of low-skilled workers in America and 2. have more innovation in order to create more jobs, fix our declining infrastructure and reinforce our economic position.
That said, I agree with most that S. Miller is a racist and should NOT have a seat at the negotiating table. He is an ugly distraction and a hate monger.
He comes across like a used car salesman, not someone who is--nor should be -- involved in statesmanship.
15
Compromise, yes. That is the essence of democracy. Stephen Miller? Ridiculous.
29
"And it’s also clear that many immigration restrictionists are influenced by simple bigotry"
What about the immigration restrictionists who are influenced by the fact we already have 330 million people and will be close to a billion by the end of the century if nothing changes?
Gaylord Nelson the founder of earth day was for reducing US immigration because of it's effects on the environment. The number one driver of climate change is human activity and Americans use 25% of earth's resources so the question becomes when is enough enough and when does immigration stop altogether? In the 70's it was the liberals who were for zero population growth and slowing immigration. How did that change?.
8
Well, my father emigrated here from Turkey, speaking no English, while I've cofounded several companies creating several hundred jobs overall. My barber's a Syrian immigrant whose daughter is heading to med school. So, I'm skeptical that there's much of correlation between the skills of an immigrant and the accomplishments of the next generation or two.
What I think Trump is trying to do here, as is pretty clear from his preference for Norwegian immigrants over anyone from Africa (no matter how skilled), is keep America as white as possible. You can try to pretty it up by pretending Trump and Miller's concern is over importing skills, but we all know the real story here.
So, no, I don't think we take *this* deal. If Trump wants money for his wall, he can trade that for letting the DACA beneficiaries stay. Period.
43
Douthat, I am well aware of the consequences of letting in low-skilled immigrants. They come here. some of them who cannot eb=ven read or write, and then they have children. Do you know what becomes of those children? I know what happened to one; he became a NASA engineer. He is my father. Skill-based immigration discounts that most American of ideas, the idea of potential, the idea of the self-made. In particular, engineering strikes me as an aspirational field, full of "hidden figures." To put it another, more cynical way, I don't see the children of the 1% breaking out slide rules.
85
Excelent point! Right on the money. Being low skilled were most immigrants who came over in early 1900's from Europe. Today, their grandsons and daughters are Govenors, Senators, Congressman, Ceo's, Teacher's. This is the land of opportunity. Clean up the system, of course. Establish legality, but respect the potential of the human endeavor.
2
My paternal grandparents fled the pogroms, arriving here without a penny and speaking no English. Both worked every day of their lives. My grandfather opened a small neighborhood "tienda" though I'm sure the word was more like
"kleyn krom." Later, he become a painter/paper-hanger and employed several helpers. My father and his three brothers all went to college. Two became pharmaceutical chemists. Under Miller's plan, they would not have been allowed to come here and would have died in the gas chambers, as did the family members they left behind and as did all my mother's family.
5
The problem is that with Stephen Miller is in the room, Trump seems to listen to the last person he see to make a decision and unfortunately for Dreamers and others who see immigration as a strength, Trump is like a child saying, “I’m so confused”, or at least he comes across that way on almost every policy.
Miller is a disgrace in the White House but so is his boss.
23
Douthat raises an interesting point about accepting Miller at the negotiating table--but it makes me cringe inside. Maybe it's irrational and merely preferring to "steamroll" the restrictionists, which could backfire. But at least I am left with my integrity and am spared the distaste of asking my representative leaders to lie with dogs. Lying with dogs like Miller is cringe-inducing after all.
13
Studies in the past 15 years by both the federal government and the OECD have estimated that one in seven U.S. adults, or currently more than 30 million, are functionally illiterate.
Educational outcomes in the U.S. nationwide rank near the worst of any developed country.
Both of the above argue for heavier weighting of merit in immigration policies, and it should be race-blind.
7
But what about The Wall, Ross, what about The Wall? Didn't you read the part about Trump's insistence unless he gets his Wall, there will be no deal on DACA?
Trump has been holding our DACA brothers and sisters hostage to his Wall fantasy ever since he imposed a six-month deadline on their removal. I, for one, do not accept this Wall "side" as reasonable. Neither should anyone else.
11
We're simply not going to get control over illegal immigration without closing off access to the jobs people come to get. The bi-partisan Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, tried to do that by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of every job applicant to work in the US. But the measure failed because employers were not required to verify the documents such as social security cards, green cards and identity documents. Sets of "Mickey Mouse papers" are available on the street for under $40. As a result, arrests of illegal immigrants continued at over one million annually for 20 more years, and the estimated illegal population remained at over 11 million.
Buy a restaurant meal or purchase a retail item and the proprietor runs your credit card through a machine that electronically validates it. Apply for a job and the employer need only certify that the documents you presented appeared valid on their face and reasonably related to you.
This loophole can be closed by passing E-Verify, which would require electronic verification of employment and identity documents. The procedure is already in place and in use on a voluntary basis by many employers. It is not required by law because apparently both Republicans and Democrats for the past 30 years have found comfort with a large illegal population that affords them cheap labor and potential new voters.
Republicans need to ask why the White House, after 31 years, has removed E-Verify from consideration.
4
Must we follow public opinion? Is this not a Republic not a democracy? Does public opinion make policy or elected representatives who are charged with leading not following? Does a 400 year history of successful immigration count for nothing? Have not the current arguments against immigration been used in the past? Did history prove them valid?
If we had 11 million illegal Swedish immigrants would Steven Miller and public opinion be opposed?
12
"California, the model for a high-immigration future, is prosperous and dynamic — but also increasingly stratified by race, with the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras."
It also has the highest or near-highest poverty rate in the United States.
The dynamic here is that those making less than $150,000 a year have to move inland to buy homes. That gives them hours-long commutes to coastal work centers.
But the state's voters disapprove of the pollution caused by long commutes. Their representatives time and again have radically increased taxes on gasoline and fees on cars. The result: The hardest-pressed financially get hit again. And again.
Their policies are for the comfortable, not those struggling.
So, yeah! Let's stick it to those polluting poor people!!
It bothers me that voters in California don't much care about the poor. If they're wealthy, the poor don't exist for them. Others are holding on to their slight financial advantages by their fingertips, working exhausting hours without much time or energy for others' problems. Besides, they bought their homes 10 or 20 years ago when the prices weren't so back-breaking.
In the end, their elected representatives are as deaf or indifferent to the plight of poorer people as they are. If their policies hurt the working poor, they manage mightily to blot it from their consciences.
Assuming they have consciences.
4
It seems Mr. Douthat is making an argument for a rightward skewed asymmetry in immigration policy negotiation. I'm not aware of anyone on the left whose position is as extreme as Mr. Miller's. I think we are already seeing deleterious effect of Mr. Miller's inclusion.
5
No one knows what an "low skilled" immigrant can bring to this country.
Restricting immigrants to those who may bring immediate benefit to the country restricts job openings to striving students.
Those who want to reduce immigration do not fear job competition they just want things to be like they were in the 50s.
Xenophobia in the USA is as American as apple pie.
4
My question: how much of a "seat at the table" should segregation hardliners, or anti-abolitionists, have had at various points in our history? One of this country's great strengths is the stability* of its democracy, abetted by civility among policymakers with wildly divergent views. One of our country's great tragedies is that the civility and stability has come at the expense of minorities, the poor, the disenfranchised, or as Mr. Douthat refers to them, the "low-skilled."
*stability for white people, especially men.
2
"[I]ncreased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." Well, it's not at all clear to me. Diversity does not by itself sow distrust; politicians, however, have used the neutral fact of diversity to sow distrust among, and thereby reap loyalty from, those who have gotten a bad shake in our economy.
1
"the actual divisions in the country"
All of a sudden, all that matters is that there are differing opinions? That one side has support verging on 80% means that the nasty beliefs held by Stephen Miller and 2% of the population needs to be at the table?
8
It is a mistake to assume that a course of action can be divorced from the motives of the person advocating for it. In the administration of government that is just not the case. If the reputation of a government figure (such as Miller;. such as Trump) is such that there is ample reason to believe they have contempt for specific groups of people, policies that just so happen to impose hardships on those groups become fatally suspect.
For example, while one may be for or against the death penalty, it is beyond question that a judge that has expressed any long-standing bias against a defendant cannot be allowed to sit in judgment upon them. The mere APPEARANCE of bias in the judiciary can be fatal (as ex-judge Roy Moore learned on multiple times). The motives behind a policy matter as much as the policy itself.
Turning back to immigration, those who want to talk about "getting tough" have made a grave mistake in embracing the likes of Miller and Trump. Even IF, in the abstract, they could decisively win the policy argument on immigration, the Trump administration's (and at this point the GOP's) unfortunate affinity for attracting high-profile, unapologetic racists at its "fringe."
There is every reason to believe that people like Miller wish to rid themselves of people they arrogantly view as unworthy and have merely chosen "immigration reform" and/or "national security" as a convenient vehicle for their bigotry. That's a problem.
5
"He wants a policy that favors skills-based recruitment..."
For years in Silicone Valley and other tech centers, big tech has been criticized for a policy of skills-based recruitment that seems grossly unfair. Older programmers and other IT specialists were laid off and replaced by younger, lower paid foreign-trained technicians. Steve Jobs was famous for urging unlimited immigration of IT workers. While there is a shortage of skilled programmers, there are many Americans who could be trained to fill these jobs yet the Trump administration seems unaware of this.
6
Living in Southern Arizona for decades, one gets to know Dreamers, their families as well as those who cross illegally.
I just spent the afternoon chatting with a 25 year old Dreamer who is finishing his master's degree in computer engineering.
What both have in common is a sincere desire to work and get ahead. Each is relative to their station in life.
Are they all perfect? No. But the vast majority have true grit.
If they have the means, they get a visa, overstay and welcome to America instead of waiting 25 years for a green card, temporary status and maybe, just maybe a chance at citizenship.
For those without the means, they sneak across the border though the West deserts. If you've ever been there, its treacherous, dangerous and life threatening. It takes great will to see it through.
But the common thread is desire and the will to succeed.
It seems to me we can use those traits in a country which is getting older, more geriatric, by the day.
9
Mr. Douthat writes, "The foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high [...]."
So? Is that a problem for you, Ross?
He finishes this sentence with "[...] and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics."
The only people for whom increased diversity sows distrust are conservatives. Here's an idea: let's get back to supporting education initiatives instead of gutting them. We distrust only what we don't know. As we become more familiar with phenomena, gadgetry, and people we find we have no reason to distrust them. I disagree that it is diversity that puts stresses on politics. Nothing puts stress on a political conversation like racism.
Under what rock did Mr. Miller crawl and how can we direct him back there?
6
By Mr. Douthat’s logic, Richard Spencer and David Duke should also have “a seat at the table”.
It’s one thing to celebrate a diversity of viewpoints in terms of coming to a compromise agreement on a complex and nuanced issue. It’s quite another to rationalize the inclusion of extremist perspectives which have shown themselves to be nothing if not uncompromising.
Miller is not a necessity. He’s a restrictionist saboteur who will support nothing short of tearing down an immigration system which - as flawed as it is - is one of the very reasons that America can stake any legitimate claim to greatness.
6
We can discuss immigration reform and have different views, but we cannot have avowed racists at the table. Full stop. No matter what percentage of the population they represent. No matter that some of their policy concerns are shared by people who are not racists.
That means that not only should Miller not be at the table, but Trump too should not be present.
Thank you Russia, Comey, the mainstream media, gerrymanderers, even late-night comedians for sending us down this rabbit hole. But, I know, I'm blaming the wrong people: it's really Hillary's fault.
7
Whenever you feel you have to insert the word "clearly" to make a point it's a sign that you are voicing your prejudices. Douthat writes "increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics." It is racist, xenophobic people and the distrust they sow that have put stresses on our politics. The vast majority of newcomers to the US just want to live in peace, work or go to school, and pursue happiness. People like Miller and Trump promote their political interests by demonizing these people. They cultivate distrust--inventing lies and distorting facts to portray immigrants as parasites who endanger our society. By drawing energy from hatred and exploiting vulnerability, it is Miller and Trump who are the dangerous parasites.
10
I think we have done enough for the world. We have sacrificed our young people in wars and given away our worldly goods to the unfortunate. And, as you have written: "the foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high." Enough is enough.
3
This is disgusting. Douthat says that about a third of Americans want to keep the rate of immigration the same, about a third want to increase, and a third agrees with Mr. Miller.
So in a democracy a third of the people should decide what the policy is? I don't think so.
3
I don't think that immigration reform based upon the evidence that immigration doesn't hurt the country is "elite consensus." Should legislators really give into public opinion if it reflects the xenophobia of the extreme right?
2
When you mentioned a skills-based policy and a somewhat lower general immigration rate, you conveniently left out the wall. The expensive and useful and symbolically wretched wall is by far the thing that progressives object to the most.
If you think increased diversity sows distrust and stresses our politics, I say so be it. Let there be stress. Change never comes easily, but it's almost always worth the effort and fight.
4
How can it be an "elite consensus" when, by Mr Douthat's own math, two thirds of the citizenry support it. Seems like an "overwhelming" consensus to me.
2
The current level of legal immigration of 1,000,000 foreigners moving to the USA should be viewed as high. In 1967 the USA hit 200 million in population, and in 2006 it hit 300 million, and the US Census stated it was 326 million as of this past July. These increases have turned millions of acres of natural land in to office parks, shopping centers, housing, parking lots and areas with new roads. The Audubon Society did a bird count of meadow birds in 167 and again in 2007. There was a 40 percent reduction due to loss of meadows to development. It is unfortunate that the environmental impact of so many more residents is not debated. The money aspect of foreigners raising their standard of living by moving here seems to take precedence.
If the liberals really wanted to help a lot more people in other countries, then they should figure out a way to export our legal system and educational and business systems. It is unfair to US citizens to have such a large influx of immigrants come in every year. It is a driver of higher and higher costs of a housing as there is less of the desirable land and locations for housing. Why should the USA be overcrowded, just so foreign people can raise their standard of living ? Having visited El Salvador and Nicaragua in 2003, I suggest the many liberal readers of this column, to do the same. That would help those countries.
7
Nope. I'd rather defenestrate Miller and steamroll the Trumpists. Dems failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform because they focused on other priorities. Republicans were never going to pass it. If Dems take both houses and the White House in 2020, they will get it done right.
4
There is room for improvement in many aspects of American life. Thoughtful debate and collegial exchanges of views are needed. However, any debate that involves a sour bigot like Miller cannot prosper: it may very well advantage some people but it divides us against our neighbors. Since before the Civil War, the champions of States' Rights have been busy. In the current era, especially under the spur of the programs of FDR and LBJ, and in opposition to Brown Vs Board of Ed,, much treasure has been spent by conservatives to buy cogent arguments to back up their congenital prejudices. Racism, classism, and greed are the three big sins of America's past and indeed of the present.
A party like the Democratic Party has as its main goals opposition to injustice and promotion of justice both economic and social. In that regard, while the White House welcomes and empowers the likes of Miller, we have our work cut out for us. Splitting hairs to assign some positive value to his methods and his views is part if the infection that rots the soul of America.
3
Negotiations would be calmer and better reflect public views if the administration, instead of persecuting racial groups, was coherent. Or if there was a truce on stealth onslaughts, and racist initiatives, that are as alarming for the lawlessness, as they are for human right concerns. Do you negotiate with outlaws?
How can there be a rational conversation when ICE is practicing deportation with reckless cruelty? The 30 year old deportee, here since childhood, with a wife and two children? Only the staunchest bigot would enjoy what is happening.
Enter Stephen Miller, who is a rhetorician, (or as the dictionary says, a man given to verbal extravagance), and not reasonable. If you have no empathy to suffering, you have no place at the table, and that disqualifies him.
Miller doesn't believe the words on the Statue of Liberty represent American values. He should try sobriety.
How do you negotiate with those who are deeply offensive to our laws and values, without conceding to demoralized lawlessness?
It's worth mention that our immigration policies are of international concern, and that our dishonor and racist bigotry in this regard will have a lasting impact on our reputation and the affection the world has for us. Trump thinks such is worthless, but I am afraid that Americans are so spoiled, so used to being admired, that they can't even conceive of how international disregard would impact us.
I hope they never find out.
3
What if unskilled worker immigrants are needed for jobs for jobs citizens refuse?
What if green carding skilled workers increases competition thereby lowering wages for citizens?
What if the vitality of social security depends on imported and youthful workers funding the system?
1
I think poor Stephen Miller suffers from really bad optics. Every time I see a picture of him, staring into the camera intensely, I can't help but shudder. In another day and age, it would be easy to picture him in an Inquisitor's robe, or an SS uniform, perfectly creased. Perhaps Mr. Miller is a soft-spoken, easy-going family man, I don't know. I certainly cannot make that jump from any of his public statements, nor the policy he backs, which is much more repressive and authoritarian... it sometimes seems like he's about 80-years and one continent away from his proper timeline. Though he seems to be doing his best to bring back the 'immigration' policy of that regime.
3
Ross has the logic of the Senate Republicans: whatever garners 51 or 60 votes is good policy. Immigrants are great as cheap labor and the lack of severe penalities for employers who hire undocumented workers has reduced the coherency of the policy laughable. Fundamentally, this is about having a whiter country or a country with brown doctors from Asia and the Middle East. Ultimately it's about race and reactionaries like Ross can't confront what his radial party has become. Twenty thousand refuggees since Trump has been president have fled to Canada.
1
While everyone seems to be commenting on Miller the racist, I'm more taken aback by this: "increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on politics." Really? The only stressed one are the racists, I would say. And how and way exactly does increased diversity sow distrust? Isn't distrusting someone different than you simply because of the color of their skin, their religion or their country of origin the definition of racism?
938
Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam--of Bowling Alone fame--has found that racial and ethnic diversity reduce social trust, with lots of concomitant harms in form of reduced trust in institutions, participation in civil life, friendships, etc. And it is not just a phenomenon of people from different groups not trusting each other. Within-group trust is also reduced. I.e., in a diverse community, whites have less trust in other whites, blacks less trust in other blacks, etc.
4
I agree with you. That sentence trumpeted the authors racism. It was horrible.
4
Tom
New York City and its nearby suburbs are very diverse. I live in one of the suburbs and have lived in Manhattan. I have not witnessed many of the problems Sociologist Robert Putnam has found. We get along quite well.
Stephen Miller faithfully represents Trump's views on immigration and his core campaign promises, so of course, he should be involved. I don't understand why Lindsay Graham was involved in the immigration debate because he got zero votes when he ran for Presidency and he represents no-one.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-01-24.html
This discussion of side-lining Miller is about repudiating Trump's campaign promise and deny people the outcome they voted for.
12
The negotiations on immigration are primarily a legislative one, and Graham is one of the more prominent legislators (the people of his state voted for him), regardless of what any of us think as individuals. Miller is a policy adviser to the president, not a legislator or a member of the cabinet (the people didn't vote for him). And Ann Coulter shouldn't even be given the time of day here; she is just extreme entertainment for the truth challenged right. Your argument holds no real merit.
1
Stephen Miller also is the proud avatar in high places of male pattern baldness, a necessary balance to curious and entertaining excursions into excess to disguise it – not that such balance is necessary in THIS White House.
I’m not an immense fan of Stephen Miller the man; but then, all I know about him is what I read about him, and a fair amount of what I read is in the New York Times; so … you never know. But his concerns are my concerns, except that since I’m not charged with defending them before the nation or in guiding a president, I can afford NOT to appear to be such a berserker on these issues just to penetrate the intense resistance by some to his efforts.
As to trying to keep or make America “whiter”, folks, that ship has sailed – America is well on the way to becoming an intermediate-to-dark-sepia shade that would be good for us by eliminating at least ONE thing to hate, except that we’ll likely just find something else to take its place (not an American failing, but a human one) – perhaps freckles. I suspect Miller understands that this ship has sailed. However, I don’t think he believes that we (the most inclusive “we” – ALL of us) have some moral obligation to make America LESS “white”, or LESS Judeo-Christian, or LESS natively English-speaking. And that’s an important distinction to make. Sometimes, it appears that those so unalterably opposed to Miller’s convictions DO have those objectives. WHY do they?
6
Ross gives a lot of reasons why Miller should be included in immigration discussions, but his highly intelligent and insightful column today can be synthesized into one that shouldn’t be buried in the weeds: we may (although likely not) see a ping-ponging of undivided government for some time to come; and legislation most likely will not prove effective if it ISN’T the product of compromises among ALL the opposed viewpoints. If Miller’s concerns are NOT seen to have been considered in any agreements on comprehensive immigration, then those agreements will not last – indeed, destroying them may become the basis for future campaigns AIMED at reversing such legislation.
We need strategically viable, long-term solutions to our most pressing and even our most controversial challenges. Silencing what are clearly mainstream viewpoints is not an intelligent way of fashioning such solutions.
7
Richard, I have some trouble with your implied qualification of Stephen Miller's viewpoint as mainstream, unless mainstream means giving a voice at the table to every fringe viewpoint out there. Perhaps the right should attempt to bring a more rational voice to the table in his place, if they can find one. Miller wasn't elected and doesn't hold any official position that would warrant his input, other than Trump's vouching for him for now. A senior adviser to the president shouldn't do more than advise the president.....
1
JWinder:
It's only a "fringe" group when all you listen to or read are MSNBC or the NYT. Ross cited statistics supporting the claim that 1/3 of voters are for enhanced immigration, 1/3 are against it and, presumably, 1/3 are undecided. That makes Miller's view mainstream by any rational definition of the word.
While having a hard-liner like Miller at the bargaining table makes some sense. It's important that he not have veto power over any deal. He's not noted for his willingness to compromise even a little.
31
How about a compromise accepting a pathway to US Citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants?
At Santa Monica High School, while running for class President in 2002, Stephen Miller was booed off the stage by thousands for making these charming remarks:
“Am I the only one who is sick and tired of being told to pick up my trash when we have plenty of janitors who are paid to do it for us?!”
Justin Brownstone, the student President at the time, said. "He enjoyed saying things that were perceived as racist. The more he offended, the happier he was".
"It was a racist remark because we all knew that our janitors were people of color," said fellow student Natalie Flores; all of the school custodians were Latino or black.
In middle school, a Univision investigation revealed Miller had a friend named Jason Islas, who was Latino. Shortly after both kids entered high school, Islas told Univision, Stephen Miller simply stopped talking to him.
“I can't be your friend any more because you are Latino,” Islas remembers Miller telling him.
Also according to Univision, the undergraduate Miller and the graduate student Richard Spencer (now a well-known neo-Nazi) were friends while both attended Duke University together. They were so close that Miller helped Spencer organize an on-campus debate on immigration featuring Peter Brimelow, known for his alt-right, white nationalist views.
Spencer has stated that he had spent a lot of time with Miller at Duke and that he had mentored him.
The United States of America does not deserve to have this kind of trash in the White House.
1357
Unless something significant changes their attitude, the beliefs children and adolescents have about people's acceptability carry on throughout their lives.
When I was in secular elementary school in Brooklyn, I tried to befriend a Catholic classmate who was in the same track as I was but she avoided me so I gave up but kept hoping because we seemed to be a good pair. About two years later, she came up to me in school one day and said that she would like to be my friend. I asked her what happened. "The Pope (John XXIII) said that the Jews didn't kill Jesus so I can be your friend." And we were, eating lunch together most days and hanging out together after school (although we lived in different directions from our school) for the next three years until we graduated and went to separate Junior High Schools.
It would not have surprised me that there were other Catholic children growing up who avoided Jews because the belief on high was that we were responsible for their deity dying. John XXIII changed people's attitudes in a positive way, not just my friend's.
Who knows what changed Miller from accepting the "other" to rejecting those people? As the "other" to most all of America, I just never understood it, especially since I was taught in yeshiva (which I attended after secular school four days a week) to love "the widow, the orphan and the stranger" because we were strangers everywhere but our homeland.
7
Justin Brownstone sounds like a wise soul.
6
Miller is a piece-of-work, along with Julia Hahn, both from Liberal Jewish West Side LA. But I wonder sometimes as children do learn from their parents. I often wonder what the Millers and the Hahns think of their children. I would gladly read a published interview.
5