The Immigration Conundrum

In spite of my distaste for President Trump the immigration issue did not just arise when he was elected. In fact, a good argument can be made that his election was in a very large part a reaction to the increased numbers of immigrants, both legal and "illegal" of the past few decades, along with the changes brought by this influx and other changes in society.The  We see this across Europe now as populist governments opposed to immigration have sprung up across the continent, most recently in Italy.

The post-war consensus that has governed the western world has been fraying on the edges as nationalist candidates opposed to immigration and generous refugee policies have risen to power in the United States and Europe. Both sides of the continent have been governed by center-right to center-left parties and coalitions who had their own distinctive philosophies, but remained in broad agreement with the set of values that has defined our civilization since the end of the war. This consensus was rooted in international institutions, a world trade system governed by a set of rules and treaties, a defense system rooted in cooperation against outside threats, and an immigration system that allowed for the importation of refugees from war-torn nations and immigrants from the 3rd world.

Now the center is not holding, and large swathes of people have looked to non-mainstream candidates and parties to address their frustration with the changes in society that have occurred over these decades. This is misguided in my view because the post-war years have brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to the western world and I am deeply uncomfortable with replacing it with a yet-to-be-known set of values centered around nationalism, resentment, and anger. The rhetoric and sentiments blowing back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean have led us to the possibility of trade wars that benefit no one, and increasingly strident language and actions regarding immigration.

It has been said that if the political mainstream does not address issues that are roiling public sentiment that politicians outside the mainstream will step in to fill the void. Public polling on this issue can be a bit confusing, but it is obvious that there is at least a substantial minority of voters that are very upset by decades of large scale immigration. Into this void stepped Donald Trump and the angry man became the voice of these angry voters. Enough mainstream voters were repulsed by the other candidate to support him as well, and he rode this wave narrowly into the White House. His rhetoric about rapists and making Mexico pay for a wall resonated with these voters and thrilled them. He gets it! He's mad like us! Build the wall! Toss them out! Make Mexico pay for it!

But a Trump was only possible because of the inaction of both parties during the past twenty years on a growing issue. Congress has failed repeatedly to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan that address both border security and the status of the millions of undocumented people living in our nation right now. George W. Bush had a moment where action was possible but Congress failed to act. Barrack Obama had a filibuster-proof majority and Congress again failed to act. Each side has jockeyed for position and preferred to have this an issue rather than come up with a solution. This is a failure of leadership across the political spectrum.

There are a few things that are true that many politicians and a large chunk of the public refuse to acknowledge:

1. The public has no confidence (with good reason) to believe in the enforcement of our southern border. It is not unreasonable to accept that a nation should have defined borders and control over who enters the country. Without a stable and enforceable border it will be difficult to convince voters that other changes need to occur. A 3000 mile wall may not be the way to do it, and it is silly to ask Mexico to pay for it, but strong, sensible, compassionate, and highly effective border enforcement is a pre-requisite to a solution.
2. Estimates of undocumented people in the United States range from 10-30 million people. Without turning the country into a police state you are never going to expel even a fraction of these people. Its a fantasy to believe otherwise.
3. People come here out of desperation and in a hope of a future. We in this country have never been faced with that kind of hopelessness and desperation.  This doesn't mean we have to accept all comers or have "open borders", but we need to understand why they come. Much more should be done to assist in stabilizing the nations south of our border to reduce the demand.
4. These immigrants are doing a lot of the work no one else wants to do. Just watch roofers carrying shingles up a ladder in the 105 degree Oklahoma heat and hammering shingles all day long, laying concrete, cleaning office buildings at night, picking vegetables, etc. Yes, I suppose if wages were raised high enough there might be Americans willing to do some of these jobs. Don't count on it. We have become addicted to the cheaper labor and the economic benefits it provides to us all.
5. I have known many of the "Dreamers" or "DACA" population. While it runs the gamut, a lot of these young people are just looking for a better life in a nation they came to when they were young. Many have no memory of the country of their birth and have never visited it. Some don't even speak Spanish well and many of them don't read or write it well. It is senseless not to come up with a solution for them.

The makings of a deal are there, but it would require leadership and a commitment from both parties to compromise. Right now the political will is not there on either side of the aisle.  It is easier to rile up the angry on the Trumpian side or elicit outrage and hashtags on the progressive side. It is time for the center to assert itself again and come up with a broad solution that encompasses an effective border and a practical way to deal with people who are already here. 

This is where Trump could have an opportunity to make a positive difference if he chose to do so. It was said that, "only Nixon could go to China".  He would have to accept that he won't get everything he wants and that his "four pillars" will probably not emerge from a deal the way he would prefer. Chuck Schumer would have to risk alienating the "no borders" progressive partisans and be willing to legislate real and verifiable border enforcement in exchange for real and meaningful resolutions for people already here (yes, including a path to citizenship!) They would both anger their base Do have the courage and vision to do so? Are they willing to provide cover for their members of Congress to support it?

If not, we can keep going the way we are going. Trump will get re-elected and the issue will rage on without much resolution. He won't get his wall and the DACA population will remain in limbo. A Democrat might defeat him and the current muddle will continue onward. They won't enforce the border and Congress will not be able to pass DACA relief.

A conservative president of the past generation said this in his farewell address to the nation:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

It is time to update our immigration system based on these values consistent with effective borders and compassion for those who have struggled to get here. 

Its time for the center to hold once again.