Tag: immigration policy
NBC News poll on immigration

The Democrats' Opportunity, If Only They Can Seize It

President Donald Trump's approval rating is sinking and gasping for air. His average net approval stands at -13.7, which is lower than Joe Biden's was at this point in his term. This matters beyond cosmic justice: The president's approval rating is the best predictor of midterm election outcomes. When it falls below 50 percent, his party tends to lose seats, as in the 1982, 1994, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018 elections.

So the Democratic Party, written off as dead by some a few months ago, stands poised for victory in November. That's good, but not good enough.

The stakes are so high that a win isn't sufficient to meet the moment. We need a crushing repudiation of this fascistic horror show.

The easiest issue, perhaps surprisingly, is immigration. Since 2024, Democrats have been snakebit on the subject, afraid that their instinctive pro-immigrant positions were unpopular enough to lead voters to select a snarling villain vowing mass deportations. They can exhale. What the polls over the past year suggest is that most Americans are not white-supremacist goons like Stephen Miller, ready to trash the Constitution in the name of purifying die Volk.

Instead, voters actually believed that Trump would only deport "the worst of the worst." As they watched the inhuman treatment of gardeners, veterans, children, and American-citizen protesters, they soured fast. Following the shooting of Alex Pretti, fully 60 percent of respondents told NBC they disapproved of Trump's immigration policies, 49 percent strongly so.

If Democrats present themselves as opposing the brutal tactics of ICE and CPB and favoring firm border controls, they should find themselves in the sweet spot. Messages like Billie Eilish's "No one is illegal on stolen land" are unhelpful. By all means, get angry about the savagery; stress that law and order means that first and foremost the state cannot be the lawbreaker. But also add that borders are not notional and chaos cannot be permitted to prevail along the Rio Grande.

The other big issue on voters' minds is inflation, or "affordability." The reality is that politicians cannot actually bring prices down, as Trump promised to do in 2024, except by crashing the economy. Still, some voters presumably believed him, and they are disillusioned now. Some Democrats may be tempted to run on taxing the rich. This is a comfortable old shoe for Democrats, but as a political strategy it hasn't been terribly successful. Middle-class voters often fear that they will be labeled as rich.

On the other hand, voters have already concluded that tariffs are making life more expensive. The issue is a layup — if Democrats can get out of their own way. Nearly 60 percent of Americans blame Trump for rising prices, and 65 percent disapprove of his tariffs. Fifty-nine percent of independent voters say the tariffs have hurt the economy and their personal finances. Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs. Back in 2024, Americans were about equally divided on the question of trade, with some favoring higher tariffs and roughly similar numbers opting for lower tariffs. Experience has changed their views.

The progressive wing of the party has long favored tariffs as a way to protect American workers from competition from low-wage nations. This muddies the waters.

Cutting tariffs is one of the only levers governments can pull that will actually reduce prices, and since price sensitivity is very much on voters' minds, does it make sense to temper that message at all? All House Democrats voted in favor of a resolution that would end the national emergency excuse for tariffs, and three Republicans joined them. This is the moment. Tariffs are bad — full stop.

Finally, a vulnerability that Democrats must overcome is seeming soft on crime. Here again the Trump administration has handed them a golden opportunity. MAGA is so fixated on ethnic cleansing that it is pulling Justice Department officials off crime-fighting to pursue immigration cases. A memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed officers who had been working on transnational organized crime, money laundering, and major drug trafficking networks to focus instead on assisting ICE. Ditto for the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

Ditto for the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces. In fact, roughly 25 percent of FBI agents (and 40 percent in larger field offices) have been diverted from fighting financial crimes, public corruption, cybercrime and complex corporate investigations and pulled into immigration enforcement. Most maddening are the thousands of FBI and Homeland Security agents who've been pulled from investigations of child sex abuse to assist with deportations — as if the administration needed more ways of signaling that it's OK with child sex trafficking.

In fact, roughly 25 percent of FBI agents (and 40 percent in larger field offices) have been diverted from fighting financial crimes, public corruption, cybercrime and complex corporate investigations and pulled into immigration enforcement. Most maddening are the thousands of FBI and Homeland Security agents who've been pulled from investigations of child sex abuse to assist with deportations — as if the administration needed more ways of signaling that it's OK with child sex trafficking.

Cutting tariffs is one of the only levers governments can pull that will actually reduce prices, and since price sensitivity is very much on voters' minds, does it make sense to temper that message at all? All House Democrats voted in favor of a resolution that would end the national emergency excuse for tariffs, and three Republicans joined them. This is the moment. Tariffs are bad — full stop.

Democrats should stress that the funds appropriated for ICE would be far better deployed to local police departments. Bill Clinton's promise to hire 100,000 police officers was very popular in the '90s and cut against the Democrats' soft-on-crime image. The slogans write themselves: More Cops, Less ICE.

The voters are the last redoubt in the fight to reclaim American democracy and decency, and the Democratic Party, the world's oldest political party since the advent of universal suffrage, is the only entity that can carry the burden. If they can win a resounding victory in the House and Senate in nine months, there is hope for us.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


Sheriff Candidates In Both Parties Reject Trump's Mass Deportation Scheme

Sheriff Candidates In Both Parties Reject Trump's Mass Deportation Scheme

When Time national politics reporter Eric Cortellessa asked Donald Trump in April how he plans to carry out the "largest deportation operation in American history" if elected in November, the ex-president replied: "We will be using local law enforcement."

Local law enforcement candidates — both Democrats and the GOP candidates backed by Trump — in Miami-Dade County, Florida, told the Miami Herald in a recent interview that they don't plan to assist the former president with this plan.

"As far as I’m concerned, if the law stays the way it is, immigration stays in their lane and I stay in mine," Republican sheriff candidate and veteran police union boss John Rivera told the Florida newspaper.

The Miami Herald reports:

A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign did not respond to the Herald’s request for comment on how he sees the role of local law enforcement in carrying out his mass-deportation promises. U.S. law states that federal officials can’t deputize state or local law enforcement officers to carry out the work of federal immigration officers without permission from the agency’s head — like, for example, a sheriff. But even the candidate endorsed by Trump in the race — Rosanna Cordero-Stutz — said that she would only be willing to help federal immigration agents in limited circumstances.

The newspaper also notes:

Currently, the county’s Democratic mayor, Daniella Levine Cava, oversees the Miami-Dade Police Department, which would become the county Sheriff’s Office in 2025. Florida rules also require partisan elections for sheriff, meaning Republican and Democratic voters will select their nominee for sheriff in the Aug. 20 primaries. Despite the partisan incentive of Republican candidates to align themselves with Trump, there’s a divide over immigration enforcement between the presumptive GOP nominee and Miami-Dade’s GOP sheriff candidates.

Candidates assert that participating in Trump's deportation ploy "would erode the community’s trust in law enforcement and pull officers away from their ultimate mission of ensuring public safety," the newspaper reports.

Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Joe Sanchez — who's also a GOP candidate — emphasized, "We’re not going to help the president on that one."

GOP candidate Jose Aragu added, "Quite frankly, I don’t think we have the time for that."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet


Pro-Trump Border Patrol Union Urges Congress To Pass Senate Bill He Opposes

Pro-Trump Border Patrol Union Urges Congress To Pass Senate Bill He Opposes

In a major blow to House Republicans, some far-right Senate Republicans, and Donald Trump, the labor union representing U.S. Border Patrol agents and staff on Monday endorsed the Senate border bill, saying it “will drop illegal border crossings nationwide.”

The entire House Republican leadership team in a statement Monday called the Senate bill “DEAD on arrival.” The legislation, seen as the “harshest” immigration bill in decades, also provides billions for defense in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

Just last week Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, appeared before a GOP-controlled House committee, testifying, “I can honestly say border patrol agents want him impeached,” referring to Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

But on Monday, Judd and the NBPC broke from House Republicans.

“Since Joe Biden has been in office, CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] has averaged over 8,000 apprehensions per day and the vast majority of these illegal immigrants have been released under a policy known as catch-and-release,” he said in a statement. In another version that number read “6,700.”

“Approximately 60% of all border apprehensions are single adults, a good number of whom are military age men,” he added, echoing GOP talking points.

“Approximately 60% of all border apprehensions are single adults, a good number of whom are military age men,” he added, echoing GOP talking points.

But then Judd added:

“The Border Act of 2024 will give U.S. Border Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not had in the past. This will allow us to remove single adults expeditiously and without a lengthy judicial review which historically has required the release of these individuals into the interior of the United States. This alone will drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our borders illegally and evade apprehension. While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo. This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage.”

Fox News’ Bill Melugin adds, ” Like every union, this doesn’t represent the views of every Border Patrol agent, but the union is vehemently anti-Biden & pro-border security, just look at their X posts, and the union president is a supporter of former President Trump – who said he is against the deal.”

Indeed, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2016 and 2020.

Trump strongly opposes the legislation, and has warned all Republicans against voting for it, instead demanding a “perfect” bill that allows zero undocumented immigrants to cross the border.

“Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill,” Trump said on Truth Social, while calling it a “great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party,” according to Politico.

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet


We Need An Immigration Policy That Builds Our Future

We Need An Immigration Policy That Builds Our Future

Postcards from the great American labor shortage: A couple arrives at the Seattle airport after a five-hour flight and stands in line at the car rental desk. People are angry. At the desk sits a harassed employee explaining that he simply has no cars of any kind to rent. Nothing. Why? There aren't enough employees on hand to vacuum, wash, fuel and process the cars.

Another snapshot. A couple has been driving for several hours and requires a bathroom stop. They pull into a Burger King. The doors are locked. The only service is at the drive-thru. Why? Lack of employees.

Perhaps you've stayed in a hotel recently? Maid service and room service are scarce. If hotels offer these services at all, they are available only upon request. About 25% of restaurant and hotel employees are immigrants. What could be going on here?

Politico reports that hospitals in 40 states have reported critical staffing shortages — orderlies and janitors, yes, but also nurses, doctors and medical technicians. One in five nurses and one in four health aides are foreign-born. Twenty-eight percent of physicians are immigrants.


That dining room set you've been waiting to have delivered? A shortage of port workers and truck drivers is slowing everything down. More airline delays. Fewer varieties of foods in supermarkets. Shortages of lumber, cars and consumer electronics.

And, as you may have noticed, everything is much more expensive.

The reasons for this are multifactorial. Plunging demand for cars during the pandemic, for example, induced the industry to slow down its production. It takes time to ramp back up. The inflation we're experiencing is partially a result of the government flooding too much cash into people's accounts, compounded by COVID-induced supply chain shocks and the disruptions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

But the one factor we discuss too little is immigration — or rather, we emphasize the wrong aspect. Republicans are obsessed with the southern border and the dreaded waves of people (or sometimes "caravans") attempting entry. But we've long had people thronging the Mexican border. What we haven't seen in many decades is a serious decline in the number of legal immigrants-a decline that is a big factor in all the things Americans dislike about how things are going right now. If an immigration advocate had wanted to concoct a scenario to demonstrate to Americans just how diminished their lives would be with fewer immigrants, they couldn't have devised a better scheme than the combination of the Trump administration and the pandemic.

Trump began his squeeze on immigrants in 2017 with a ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries and followed up with drastic reductions in the number of green cards issued, the number of refugees admitted (a shameful policy choice) and the number of legal immigrants processed. A Government Accountability Office review found that the Citizenship and Immigration Service increased its processing time for immigration applications sixfold between 2015 and 2020. Trump officials threw sand into the gears. They raised fees for naturalization applications from $620 to $1,160 and added burdensome, niggling requirements. A 2019 rule, for example, forced immigrants to refile forms if they left a space blank, even if the question did not pertain to them. Interviews were stalled, and they starved the relevant agencies of funding.

Where is the outrage that we are turning away highly skilled immigrants who could make the difference in our competition with China? Wouldn't an "America first" policy capitalize on our desirability as a destination for the talented instead of slamming our doors? Wouldn't we be welcoming those who will create the key technologies for the future, like artificial intelligence?

Before Trump, Republicans used to stress that they were all for legal immigration but only opposed the illegal variety, but that's all changed now. In fact, as Alex Nowrasteh at the CATO Institute argues, Trump failed to budge the number of illegal immigrants in the United States but radically diminished the number of legal immigrants. Sen. Tom Cotton and other Republicans are now on the record as favoring less legal immigration. According to some estimates, if the immigration rate had remained unchanged during Trump's term, we would now have nearly 2 million more prime-age workers.

Those workers would be driving trucks, administering IVs at hospitals, cleaning hotel rooms, picking vegetables and designing software. They'd be starting businesses (immigrants are 80% more likely to do this than native-borns), paying taxes and caring for the elderly. And, by the way, they would be helping to bring down the overall price level.

But Trump distorted the Republican party into a xenophobic, blinkered cult that wrongly sees immigrants as a drain instead of a boon.

So the question Republicans must answer today is: How do you like this immigrant-starved America? How do you like the shortages, the inflation and the poor service? Because this is what comes of nativism.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World