It's a separate issue but why do everyday Dems hate these illegal immigrants so much? They aren't competing for the same jobs, in fact they do the crappy work we no longer will do, like processing meat, hanging drywall and picking fruit. These people keep to themselves, work 12 hour days and they consume few (if any) social services - certainly not Medicaid or SS. Seems like a pretty good deal for the American public, what am I missing?
2. "what am I missing?" They represent a flagrant denigration of law and order as well as representing a giant "fuck you" to those who paid money and waited their turn to got through the legal channels of immigration to this country.
George Will properly summed up this whole conundrum for Democrats, he said, "If you say 'Only fascists enforce the border' then people will vote for fascists to enforce the border." And here we are.
My point is that the economy cannot function without these people, yet there's is no recognition of this fact. How much will prices rise without this labor force? Quite a lot, I would say.
The economy certainly can function without illegal immigration sourced labor. It will function in a different way and possibly with inflaitonary pressures, but it will function. This is nonsensical alarmist doomerist exaggeration.
Prices probably will rise in segments, and there a lesson in the market will be learned.
Either people will want to pay the prices or it becomes a market pressure for labor access - reforms whether in immigration paths that address labor categories or in reformed rules that smooth labor saving in construction or perhaps a combination.
This will be a better source of change than Lefties harranguing the unwashed masses about their moral failures.
I think you underestimate how essential these workers are. The country collectively lost its shit when inflation went up 20%. Having no one to pick our crops or process our meat could easily cause domestic prices to rise by double or triple what we experienced post-covid, with the biggest effects felt on food and construction costs. It would not be a small adjustment, but a monumental shift.
Well.... no I am not underestimating any essential at all. What I am aware of is labor substitution and product substitution as well as avoiding hysteria of exaggeration. Doomerist exaggeration (of real thing but doomerist exageration). Like the exaggerated and imprudent hysterical claims on tariffs - which while fun for Internet Comment - are not well grounded (this in no way makes tariffs good, however the doomerist exaggeration notably on time-to-impact only undermines credibility)
While it's clear there are labor shortfalls and I am sure that indeed will drive inflation, there is no current sign of "no one" being available to pick crops or operate meatpacking. I don't over-estimate either the competence or the resources or the bandwidth of the Trump effort to achieve what they claim they are seeking (nor the potential corruption for payoffs to look other ways etc) - all of which as like tariff execution mitigate and delay actual impact.
And the idea that Europe isn't so exposed is risible.
That there are going to be negative economic effects is clear but engaging in doomerist exageration is stupid internet drama llamism.
We actually have legal guest worker programs for agriculture. The reason lots of farmers don’t use them is that the same activist groups who fight tooth and nail against enforcement of borders constantly sue over even the most minor violations and make using those legal programs a bureaucratic nightmare.
"Seems like a pretty good deal for the American public"
It's not good for the rule of law to be economically dependent on people whose very presence is a violation of the law. It's not that great for those people either; because they are here illegally, they are more readily exploited by unscrupulous employers who can more easily underpay them and subject them to unsafe working conditions, knowing that if they complain to the government, it could deport them.
Not uniquely to US - as we have seen in UK and in the European Union comparative context broadly after a certain percentage threshold of a national population passes not-native born, there is a big backlash.
One can Tut-Tut about this and scold the unwashed masses on their phobias all one wants but with the EU and UK comparators it's very clear if one doesn't want to have popular backlash pass over to signficant percentage of population flipping into neo-fascist party support (or party factions) one has to stop engaging in the Moral Scold response as your response is and take it as a societal given that there needs to be a real response that is not "you ignoramuses are just ignorant haters of the poor immigrant who's doing your unwanted jobs"
They're a huge burden on social services. They're poor and as such end up costing the health system due to poor health and a lack of health insurance. They also force school systems to do everything bilingually, which isn't cheap, and their children grow up to be poorer than the median American which means they're more likely to depend on safety nets.
As someone with a partner in healthcare I can confidently say there are planty of uninsured illegal immigrants showing up with diabetes and cancer, and they're not going untreated.
That's a tired old Republican talking point that's easily disproven with a quick Google search - they use very little services compared to poor Americans. Do you also think Shumer shut down the government to give illegal immigrants healthcare too?
These people have a workforce participation rate that makes ours look pitiful in comparison. And you're mad about having to press 2 for Spanish on calls?
I don't think you responded to what I wrote. I'm not mad about pressing two for spanish. Unless you can explain to me how making our entire education system (and other systems for that matter) bilingual is somehow free (and doesn't actually disadvantage people that can't speak spanish), I don't think you're arguing in good faith here.
Or if you can show me that the educational outcomes for ESL students aren't lower than native english speaking students.
Or if you can show me that uninsured illegal immigrants aren't using healthcare, especially emergency rooms and ambulances. I didn't make any comparison between citizens and illegal immigrants, so pointing out that legal immigrants (who are typically younger) don't cost as much as native-born americans isn't addressing anything I said.
It's not "settled science" that illegal aliens are a financial boon to everyone else.
You have learned nothing from this entire conversation. Every objection is met by you with a moralistic scolding and an insinuation the responder is a secret fascist. You did it with your first comment and your most recent is exactly the same. You'd think the left - and in particular the Democratic Party - would have learned by now just how ineffective that style of argument is.
Great piece. The challenge (aside for getting up the stones to ignore The Groups) is to stake out a position that (1) persuades voters that the party is serious about the problem; (2) doesn't rely on Congress; and (3) differentiates from Trump.
Actual immigration reform (growing work visas, speeding deportation hearings, and fixing asylum) fails point #2.
Calling for strong, but humane enforcement of existing law fails #3 (and probably #1, since Dems have no credibility).
So why not point the finger squarely at employers? Aggressive enforcement of existing laws and e-Verify would actually address the issue, and lets Democrats stay in their pro-labor lane. "We don't need masked goons shoving old ladies and chasing cyclists around the street. We just need to stop the fat cats who exploit the most vulnerable."
Then you can add, "And yes, many of these people do perform essential services. There are farm workers, gardeners, housekeepers, and roofers who mind their business, love their families, and work incredibly hard. These aren't demons. But it's well past time to admit the truth: The law matters. Immigration needs to be done legally. I'm eager to work with Speaker Johnson on a plan to fix our broken system and make sure that our nation has essential workers, that we take in our share of actual refugees fleeing persecution, and yes, that we keep out criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists."
But you don't have any credibility (or leverage) to say the second part until you say the first.
The perverse advantage of an employer-focused enforcement approach is that it works faster. The economic impact of closing an entire chicken-processing plant is much greater than snagging six workers in the parking lot.
Businesses and consumers would feel the pain immediately, creating leverage on Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive reform.
Staffing was a huge problem in year one. But it was either Obama alumni that made up the White House team, or people who were new to the issue. The major decisions about the executive orders happened on the transition team by people who didn’t end up being on the senior staff. Framing this as an ideological fight doesn’t get at what led to the governing mistakes. This wasn’t a left versus right issue, this was about non-border/immigration experts learning on the job.
The claim was that I allowed or advocated for the admission of new irregular migrants. The people who came in through this process were already waiting for their asylum hearings, they were not new arrivals. We piloted a process at ports of entry that could have reduced illegal crossings between ports of entry by creating an orderly legal process at the ports. This was the same goal of Biden’s border bill years later. I agree that we should be specific when we talk about policy, and in this case, I piloted a program that allowed 13,000 asylum seekers to resume their court cases in the United States.
Well.... that's an interesting illustration of a highly lawyerly reply with a fine attention to trying to guide to a conclusion via lawyerly parsing and framing.... very nice for a court room or a brief. Outside of that context, well...
Then if I take away facts it would seem they are
A. 13k non-regular immigration process persons not otherwise entered into US
B. Via your process said persons entered into USA via asylum route in anticipation of any finding on their case. ('resume their court cases in the United States")
C. I do not see any mention of post-entry control, and given the backlogs on even standard asylum routes,
This is extrapolated, if I can parse the framing, into a mode that reducing purely illegal entry into a papered mode not-particularly-controlled to enter based on asylum claim that is to be adjudicated later. For various values of later of which years-to-never seem likely.
So a mode to exploit an asylum claim route to enter into the US - it rather sounds very much like the recipe for the flood of exploiting asylum under Biden.
As a political side, it is also an illustration of a path to failure politically - as really lawyerly parsing arguments ex-court briefs very much smell of lawyerly parsing and tend to generate rather negative responses and have the strong odor of dodging responsability.
While not myself being particularly excited politically by immigration -I do recognise political albatrosses when I see them.
"...Flores orchestrated a process that allowed thirteen thousand migrants, many of whom had spent the better part of two years in makeshift encampments, to enter the U.S."
It seems to me that your answer should be "yes," or "yes, my efforts led to the admission of more migrants by virtue of a pilot program I organized to reform the asylum system..."
Otherwise you seem to be manifesting the belief of many politicos that if you just change the framing of a potentially unpopular position, you'll attract people to your side. And (I think) that's a problem.
LOL why should we? We’re not the ones that brought this on, and don’t owe you or anyone else involved any more understanding or time. And we’re certainly not going to pay any mind to an entire New Yorker profile.
As @falous pointed out, you’ve said nothing about follow through enforcement. You simply devised a plan to bring more people in, consequences be damned.
Part of me actually thinks that you’re a Trump plant, because you can’t meme this.
I suggest looking at Biden's friends & advisors from Delaware.
First, he's a sentimental old man, and his inner circle is deep Delaware. Biden's ties to the DE construction industry go back to the 1970s when he was on the New Castle County board. Safe bet that his friends in that sector told him that illegal immigrant labor is necessary.
Second, DE poultry processing involves using illegal immigrants, and the processors would have Biden's ear. Third, Biden is stubborn, and once he's convinced that something's right, he would freeze out people, such as the DPC staff who were immigration hawks. The transition staffer who wrote the January 20 2021 Executive Order on immigration effectively etched the policy in stone.
Fourth, Biden wanted to be seen as strong on undoing the 'bad things' that Trump did.
Fifth, to prove the power of Delaware D connections, ask why did Biden sign an Executive Order on transgender issues? Because his inner circle included trans Sarah McBride, whose family has deep roots in Delaware D politics. Biden's help got McBride to a safe seat in the state legislature, and then in the U.S. House.
Thank you, Josh. You expressed one of my biggest concerns: D's are still seen as soft on illegal immigration. All these protests against ICE are likely to reinforce that perception. I'd like to see people's anger and passion directed toward getting Congress to reform our immigration laws. It would have a much more lasting effect and be a win-win.
I am of the same opinion with respect to the Biden administration's energy and infrastructure policy, which was equally disastrous and costly. Who in the Department of Interior, Coast Guard, and/or EPA (or wherever the static came from) set and enforced the policy that that administration simply would not permit non-renewable energy projects -- no matter their environmental impact or how far their owners and engineers bent over backwards to mitigate their potential harms and accommodate them to the administration's priorities.
It simply did not matter what the project was or how it was designed or proposed; no permits were going to be issued, and none were. The law allowing the projects provided they meet certain conditions did not matter. Nor did their economic impact -- which the administration was apparently oblivious to (or had drank so much of its own kool-aid that the folks enforcing this really thought they could substitute for all of it with the Green New Deal/renewables).
Of course, their economic impact sure did matter to the people in the communities affected by those delays and lack of progress -- the blue collar folks who did not get the jobs they were counting on (and should have gotten had the administration followed the law and practices of past administrations in permitting them), as well as the powerful and wealthy in those communities and industries; both groups were and are radicalized against our party for this reason (it's a very easy example to cite when folks ask rhetorically how anyone can support the Trump administration -- not saying trading a functional Department of Interior for corrupt Departments of Justice and State is a good trade, but the dysfunction of the last administration and tangible benefits from this one in comparison are real and meaningful.
President Clinton didn't have this issue. President Obama didn't have this issue. Yet President Biden did -- same as he did with immigration and a host of other issues. I agree it would be helpful to identify the folks who crafted, enforced, and today still defend that failure, as they should find another line of work and not be given similar responsibility in the next Democratic administration absent a religious-revival-level conversion experience.
I don't disagree with much in this piece. One question though. What exactly are these "loopholes" in the asylum system that caused all this trouble? People like to frame things this way because it provides a convenient explanation, but do these loopholes really exist? Or is the more complex truth that immigration law, applied fairly as it exists in treaty obligations and US law, makes it relatively easy to state a colorable asylum claim and the government has never invested in the adjudicative resources to process them in a reasonable time? So one has to resort to heavy-handed, cruel, and frankly shady policies like "remain in Mexico" to reduce the volume? I won't even opine on whether such measures are justified, but they don't seem to amount to "closing loopholes."
It's a separate issue but why do everyday Dems hate these illegal immigrants so much? They aren't competing for the same jobs, in fact they do the crappy work we no longer will do, like processing meat, hanging drywall and picking fruit. These people keep to themselves, work 12 hour days and they consume few (if any) social services - certainly not Medicaid or SS. Seems like a pretty good deal for the American public, what am I missing?
1. I don't think "hate" is the proper term here.
2. "what am I missing?" They represent a flagrant denigration of law and order as well as representing a giant "fuck you" to those who paid money and waited their turn to got through the legal channels of immigration to this country.
George Will properly summed up this whole conundrum for Democrats, he said, "If you say 'Only fascists enforce the border' then people will vote for fascists to enforce the border." And here we are.
My point is that the economy cannot function without these people, yet there's is no recognition of this fact. How much will prices rise without this labor force? Quite a lot, I would say.
The economy certainly can function without illegal immigration sourced labor. It will function in a different way and possibly with inflaitonary pressures, but it will function. This is nonsensical alarmist doomerist exaggeration.
Prices probably will rise in segments, and there a lesson in the market will be learned.
Either people will want to pay the prices or it becomes a market pressure for labor access - reforms whether in immigration paths that address labor categories or in reformed rules that smooth labor saving in construction or perhaps a combination.
This will be a better source of change than Lefties harranguing the unwashed masses about their moral failures.
I think you underestimate how essential these workers are. The country collectively lost its shit when inflation went up 20%. Having no one to pick our crops or process our meat could easily cause domestic prices to rise by double or triple what we experienced post-covid, with the biggest effects felt on food and construction costs. It would not be a small adjustment, but a monumental shift.
Well.... no I am not underestimating any essential at all. What I am aware of is labor substitution and product substitution as well as avoiding hysteria of exaggeration. Doomerist exaggeration (of real thing but doomerist exageration). Like the exaggerated and imprudent hysterical claims on tariffs - which while fun for Internet Comment - are not well grounded (this in no way makes tariffs good, however the doomerist exaggeration notably on time-to-impact only undermines credibility)
While it's clear there are labor shortfalls and I am sure that indeed will drive inflation, there is no current sign of "no one" being available to pick crops or operate meatpacking. I don't over-estimate either the competence or the resources or the bandwidth of the Trump effort to achieve what they claim they are seeking (nor the potential corruption for payoffs to look other ways etc) - all of which as like tariff execution mitigate and delay actual impact.
And the idea that Europe isn't so exposed is risible.
That there are going to be negative economic effects is clear but engaging in doomerist exageration is stupid internet drama llamism.
We actually have legal guest worker programs for agriculture. The reason lots of farmers don’t use them is that the same activist groups who fight tooth and nail against enforcement of borders constantly sue over even the most minor violations and make using those legal programs a bureaucratic nightmare.
"Seems like a pretty good deal for the American public"
It's not good for the rule of law to be economically dependent on people whose very presence is a violation of the law. It's not that great for those people either; because they are here illegally, they are more readily exploited by unscrupulous employers who can more easily underpay them and subject them to unsafe working conditions, knowing that if they complain to the government, it could deport them.
Not uniquely to US - as we have seen in UK and in the European Union comparative context broadly after a certain percentage threshold of a national population passes not-native born, there is a big backlash.
One can Tut-Tut about this and scold the unwashed masses on their phobias all one wants but with the EU and UK comparators it's very clear if one doesn't want to have popular backlash pass over to signficant percentage of population flipping into neo-fascist party support (or party factions) one has to stop engaging in the Moral Scold response as your response is and take it as a societal given that there needs to be a real response that is not "you ignoramuses are just ignorant haters of the poor immigrant who's doing your unwanted jobs"
Or as Shane H has quoted George Will.
It's definitely not uniquely American, but America is unique in how much it actually needs this labor force compared to Europe
By what bizarre metric are you concluding the US is "unique" in needing that labor force?
Because nothing in labor demographics nor economics says any such thing.
They're a huge burden on social services. They're poor and as such end up costing the health system due to poor health and a lack of health insurance. They also force school systems to do everything bilingually, which isn't cheap, and their children grow up to be poorer than the median American which means they're more likely to depend on safety nets.
As someone with a partner in healthcare I can confidently say there are planty of uninsured illegal immigrants showing up with diabetes and cancer, and they're not going untreated.
That's a tired old Republican talking point that's easily disproven with a quick Google search - they use very little services compared to poor Americans. Do you also think Shumer shut down the government to give illegal immigrants healthcare too?
These people have a workforce participation rate that makes ours look pitiful in comparison. And you're mad about having to press 2 for Spanish on calls?
I don't think you responded to what I wrote. I'm not mad about pressing two for spanish. Unless you can explain to me how making our entire education system (and other systems for that matter) bilingual is somehow free (and doesn't actually disadvantage people that can't speak spanish), I don't think you're arguing in good faith here.
Or if you can show me that the educational outcomes for ESL students aren't lower than native english speaking students.
Or if you can show me that uninsured illegal immigrants aren't using healthcare, especially emergency rooms and ambulances. I didn't make any comparison between citizens and illegal immigrants, so pointing out that legal immigrants (who are typically younger) don't cost as much as native-born americans isn't addressing anything I said.
It's not "settled science" that illegal aliens are a financial boon to everyone else.
You have learned nothing from this entire conversation. Every objection is met by you with a moralistic scolding and an insinuation the responder is a secret fascist. You did it with your first comment and your most recent is exactly the same. You'd think the left - and in particular the Democratic Party - would have learned by now just how ineffective that style of argument is.
Great piece. The challenge (aside for getting up the stones to ignore The Groups) is to stake out a position that (1) persuades voters that the party is serious about the problem; (2) doesn't rely on Congress; and (3) differentiates from Trump.
Actual immigration reform (growing work visas, speeding deportation hearings, and fixing asylum) fails point #2.
Calling for strong, but humane enforcement of existing law fails #3 (and probably #1, since Dems have no credibility).
So why not point the finger squarely at employers? Aggressive enforcement of existing laws and e-Verify would actually address the issue, and lets Democrats stay in their pro-labor lane. "We don't need masked goons shoving old ladies and chasing cyclists around the street. We just need to stop the fat cats who exploit the most vulnerable."
Then you can add, "And yes, many of these people do perform essential services. There are farm workers, gardeners, housekeepers, and roofers who mind their business, love their families, and work incredibly hard. These aren't demons. But it's well past time to admit the truth: The law matters. Immigration needs to be done legally. I'm eager to work with Speaker Johnson on a plan to fix our broken system and make sure that our nation has essential workers, that we take in our share of actual refugees fleeing persecution, and yes, that we keep out criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists."
But you don't have any credibility (or leverage) to say the second part until you say the first.
The perverse advantage of an employer-focused enforcement approach is that it works faster. The economic impact of closing an entire chicken-processing plant is much greater than snagging six workers in the parking lot.
Businesses and consumers would feel the pain immediately, creating leverage on Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive reform.
Staffing was a huge problem in year one. But it was either Obama alumni that made up the White House team, or people who were new to the issue. The major decisions about the executive orders happened on the transition team by people who didn’t end up being on the senior staff. Framing this as an ideological fight doesn’t get at what led to the governing mistakes. This wasn’t a left versus right issue, this was about non-border/immigration experts learning on the job.
Weren’t you profiled in the New Yorker in 2022 on the subject of your efforts within the White House to get the Biden Administration to admit and parole even more irregular migrants in 2021? https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/the-disillusionment-of-a-young-biden-official
The claim was that I allowed or advocated for the admission of new irregular migrants. The people who came in through this process were already waiting for their asylum hearings, they were not new arrivals. We piloted a process at ports of entry that could have reduced illegal crossings between ports of entry by creating an orderly legal process at the ports. This was the same goal of Biden’s border bill years later. I agree that we should be specific when we talk about policy, and in this case, I piloted a program that allowed 13,000 asylum seekers to resume their court cases in the United States.
Well.... that's an interesting illustration of a highly lawyerly reply with a fine attention to trying to guide to a conclusion via lawyerly parsing and framing.... very nice for a court room or a brief. Outside of that context, well...
Then if I take away facts it would seem they are
A. 13k non-regular immigration process persons not otherwise entered into US
B. Via your process said persons entered into USA via asylum route in anticipation of any finding on their case. ('resume their court cases in the United States")
C. I do not see any mention of post-entry control, and given the backlogs on even standard asylum routes,
This is extrapolated, if I can parse the framing, into a mode that reducing purely illegal entry into a papered mode not-particularly-controlled to enter based on asylum claim that is to be adjudicated later. For various values of later of which years-to-never seem likely.
So a mode to exploit an asylum claim route to enter into the US - it rather sounds very much like the recipe for the flood of exploiting asylum under Biden.
As a political side, it is also an illustration of a path to failure politically - as really lawyerly parsing arguments ex-court briefs very much smell of lawyerly parsing and tend to generate rather negative responses and have the strong odor of dodging responsability.
While not myself being particularly excited politically by immigration -I do recognise political albatrosses when I see them.
So glad you read the piece. I was profiled for piloting an asylum reform program.
"...Flores orchestrated a process that allowed thirteen thousand migrants, many of whom had spent the better part of two years in makeshift encampments, to enter the U.S."
It seems to me that your answer should be "yes," or "yes, my efforts led to the admission of more migrants by virtue of a pilot program I organized to reform the asylum system..."
Otherwise you seem to be manifesting the belief of many politicos that if you just change the framing of a potentially unpopular position, you'll attract people to your side. And (I think) that's a problem.
LOL why should we? We’re not the ones that brought this on, and don’t owe you or anyone else involved any more understanding or time. And we’re certainly not going to pay any mind to an entire New Yorker profile.
As @falous pointed out, you’ve said nothing about follow through enforcement. You simply devised a plan to bring more people in, consequences be damned.
Part of me actually thinks that you’re a Trump plant, because you can’t meme this.
I suggest looking at Biden's friends & advisors from Delaware.
First, he's a sentimental old man, and his inner circle is deep Delaware. Biden's ties to the DE construction industry go back to the 1970s when he was on the New Castle County board. Safe bet that his friends in that sector told him that illegal immigrant labor is necessary.
Second, DE poultry processing involves using illegal immigrants, and the processors would have Biden's ear. Third, Biden is stubborn, and once he's convinced that something's right, he would freeze out people, such as the DPC staff who were immigration hawks. The transition staffer who wrote the January 20 2021 Executive Order on immigration effectively etched the policy in stone.
Fourth, Biden wanted to be seen as strong on undoing the 'bad things' that Trump did.
Fifth, to prove the power of Delaware D connections, ask why did Biden sign an Executive Order on transgender issues? Because his inner circle included trans Sarah McBride, whose family has deep roots in Delaware D politics. Biden's help got McBride to a safe seat in the state legislature, and then in the U.S. House.
Thank you, Josh. You expressed one of my biggest concerns: D's are still seen as soft on illegal immigration. All these protests against ICE are likely to reinforce that perception. I'd like to see people's anger and passion directed toward getting Congress to reform our immigration laws. It would have a much more lasting effect and be a win-win.
I am still chasing down the Dobbs leak. Could I see everybody's phone, please?
I am of the same opinion with respect to the Biden administration's energy and infrastructure policy, which was equally disastrous and costly. Who in the Department of Interior, Coast Guard, and/or EPA (or wherever the static came from) set and enforced the policy that that administration simply would not permit non-renewable energy projects -- no matter their environmental impact or how far their owners and engineers bent over backwards to mitigate their potential harms and accommodate them to the administration's priorities.
It simply did not matter what the project was or how it was designed or proposed; no permits were going to be issued, and none were. The law allowing the projects provided they meet certain conditions did not matter. Nor did their economic impact -- which the administration was apparently oblivious to (or had drank so much of its own kool-aid that the folks enforcing this really thought they could substitute for all of it with the Green New Deal/renewables).
Of course, their economic impact sure did matter to the people in the communities affected by those delays and lack of progress -- the blue collar folks who did not get the jobs they were counting on (and should have gotten had the administration followed the law and practices of past administrations in permitting them), as well as the powerful and wealthy in those communities and industries; both groups were and are radicalized against our party for this reason (it's a very easy example to cite when folks ask rhetorically how anyone can support the Trump administration -- not saying trading a functional Department of Interior for corrupt Departments of Justice and State is a good trade, but the dysfunction of the last administration and tangible benefits from this one in comparison are real and meaningful.
President Clinton didn't have this issue. President Obama didn't have this issue. Yet President Biden did -- same as he did with immigration and a host of other issues. I agree it would be helpful to identify the folks who crafted, enforced, and today still defend that failure, as they should find another line of work and not be given similar responsibility in the next Democratic administration absent a religious-revival-level conversion experience.
I don't disagree with much in this piece. One question though. What exactly are these "loopholes" in the asylum system that caused all this trouble? People like to frame things this way because it provides a convenient explanation, but do these loopholes really exist? Or is the more complex truth that immigration law, applied fairly as it exists in treaty obligations and US law, makes it relatively easy to state a colorable asylum claim and the government has never invested in the adjudicative resources to process them in a reasonable time? So one has to resort to heavy-handed, cruel, and frankly shady policies like "remain in Mexico" to reduce the volume? I won't even opine on whether such measures are justified, but they don't seem to amount to "closing loopholes."
Get a volunteer to say it was all their fault so they can absorb all the friendly fire, and make it up to them through the back-channel.