Read on Twitter
*Thread*
Great piece by @DLind that serves as both an explainer about the network of policies the Trump admin has adopted to end humanitarian protections along the southern border and a way to ask provocative questions about the future.
A few thoughts. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-got-what-he-wanted-at-the-border-would-biden-undo-it
Great piece by @DLind that serves as both an explainer about the network of policies the Trump admin has adopted to end humanitarian protections along the southern border and a way to ask provocative questions about the future.
A few thoughts. https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-got-what-he-wanted-at-the-border-would-biden-undo-it
Dara divides the Democratic approach into two camps: those who view #immigration as a national security matter who embrace deterrence and those who view is as a humanitarian issue.
I'd suggest a third approach: immigration as a regulatory matter.
I'd suggest a third approach: immigration as a regulatory matter.
Dara observes that prior to the early 2010s, deterrence was an "uncontroversial strategy."
1) That's not entirely true. The US strategy of deterring (and punishing) Guatemalan & Salvadoran asylum seekers in the 1980s birthed the sanctuary movement and loads of litigation.
1) That's not entirely true. The US strategy of deterring (and punishing) Guatemalan & Salvadoran asylum seekers in the 1980s birthed the sanctuary movement and loads of litigation.
The same was true of the deterrence-through-interdiction approach the U.S. took to Haitians who set off for the U.S. by boat in the 1990s--not so much for Cubans, of course, who were welcomed with open arms once they set foot on dry land.
2) The period Dara points to--before the early 2010s--when deterrence was "uncontroversial" is also when the vast majority of the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country today arrived.
It wasn't effective even as it was deadly--especially the border fencing strategy.
It wasn't effective even as it was deadly--especially the border fencing strategy.
A sound approach to immigration as a regulatory matter would look at the economic, humanitarian, social, and other factors that affect migration--in the US, regionally, and globally--to design and carry out policies to manage migration effectively.
For instance, in the Western Hemisphere today--as has been true at various times in our past--there are now multiple different refugee crises.
In addition to working regionally to help increase human security, the U.S. could create a refugee admissions program for the region.
In addition to working regionally to help increase human security, the U.S. could create a refugee admissions program for the region.
Not everyone seeking to come to the U.S. would qualify for refugee protections even if a new administration undid the damage to asylum law by Trump's AGs.
But opportunities could be expanded to get work visas and families could be paroled into the country to wait here.
But opportunities could be expanded to get work visas and families could be paroled into the country to wait here.
For years there have been vanishingly few opportunities for anyone in the region to come to the U.S., so pressure began building on the asylum system--both because of the refugee crises genuinely driving people to flee and because it was the only seemingly viable path.
Creating new paths can both relieve pressure on our asylum system and give people who are considering making the journey an opportunity to wait and take a shot at something better, more secure.
The special lottery program for Cuban nationals is a good example of that.
The special lottery program for Cuban nationals is a good example of that.
The maximum deterrence approach by the Trump administration--which applies at the border but is paired with global entry bans to effectuate their white nationalist goal of closing off all immigration--is inhumane as well as catastrophic to the country's future.
Designing a more well-regulated immigration system overall could both serve our legal 7 moral obligations to humanitarian protection and achieve the goal of deterring unauthorized entries.
That's part of building a fair, humane, and workable system. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2019/07/22/472378/restoring-rule-law-fair-humane-workable-immigration-system/
That's part of building a fair, humane, and workable system. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2019/07/22/472378/restoring-rule-law-fair-humane-workable-immigration-system/
Final thought: the "waterproof fabric" that the Trump administration created to repel migrants was achieve through a comprehensive network of overlapping and nested policies adopted through executive action.
It's been brutally effective.
And it's something we can learn from.
It's been brutally effective.
And it's something we can learn from.
As a future administration looks to set good #immigration policy across the board, it should use every tool in its toolbox and not try to design the perfect policy for each individual situation.
Legal challenges before an increasingly hostile judiciary will be everywhere.
Legal challenges before an increasingly hostile judiciary will be everywhere.
Administrative changes must begin early and be sustained and different approaches can be adopted simultaneously.
I discuss how that could work--and the interplay between executive action and legislation--in this piece for @just_security. https://www.justsecurity.org/72815/the-president-and-immigration-law-restoring-faith-in-our-immigration-system-through-enforcement-discretion-and-reform/
I discuss how that could work--and the interplay between executive action and legislation--in this piece for @just_security. https://www.justsecurity.org/72815/the-president-and-immigration-law-restoring-faith-in-our-immigration-system-through-enforcement-discretion-and-reform/
