Mediaboss Marketing

Getty Images

Opinion

By Rich Lowry

July 05, 2017

With his penchant for tweeted insults and GIFs, Donald Trump will never be mistaken for a master of the sweet art of persuasion. Yet he is clearly winning the public argument on the issue of immigration.

He isn't doing it through sustained, careful attention. He tweeted the other day that the media will eventually have to cover his success at the border, even though he himself has devoted more energy to his war with CNN than promoting the reduction in illegal border crossings.

Story Continued Below

No, it is the sheer fact of his November victory, and the data showing the importance of the issue of immigration to it, that has begun to shift the intellectual climate.

It had been assumed, even by many Republicans like Sen. John McCain, that opposition to amnesty and higher levels of legal immigration would doom the GOP to minority status forevermore. Trump blew up this conventional wisdom.

Now, intellectuals on the center-left are calling for Democrats to rethink the partys orthodoxy on immigration, which has become more and more hostile to enforcement and to any skepticism about current high levels of immigration.

The swing here was enormous. A Trump defeat in November after running on an exaggerated version of immigration restriction would have sent Republicans scurrying back to the comfortable, corporate-friendly cliches about so-called comprehensive immigration reform. And if Hillary Clinton had won on a platform that doubled down on Obamas executive amnesties, serious immigration enforcement would have lost its political legitimacy.

Trump probably wouldn't have won without running so directly into the teeth of the elite consensus. According to a study published by Public Religion Research Institute and the Atlantic of white working-class voters, it was anxiety about culture change and support for deporting undocumented immigrants that correlated with voting for Trump, not loss of economic or social standing. Likewise, a Democracy Fund Voter Study Group report found Hillary Clinton cratered among populist voters who had supported Barack Obama, with the issue of immigration looming large.

In light of the election, Josh Barro of Business Insider, William Galston of the Brookings Institution, Peter Beinart of the Atlantic, Fareed Zakaria of CNN, and Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps, among others, have urged Democrats to re-calibrate.

Many of these writers don't merely note the perilous politics of the maximalist Democratic position on immigration or argue that policy should take account of the economic costs as well as the benefits of immigration. They also give credence to cultural concerns over mass immigrationconcerns that much of the left considers poorly disguised hate.

In an act of heresy for the Davos set, Fareed Zakaria recommends that the party should take a position on immigration that is less absolutist and recognizes both the cultural and economic costs of large-scale immigration.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Jeff D. Colgan of Brown University and Robert O. Keohane of Princeton, both supporters of globalization, make the elementary point that it is not bigotry to calibrate immigration levels to the ability of immigrants to assimilate and to societys ability to adjust.

This sentiment wouldn't be so noteworthy if the Democratic Party hadn't become so radical on immigration. Beinarts Atlantic piece was a trenchant reminder that as recently as 10 years ago the Left allowed much more room for dissent on immigration. Go back a little further, to the 1990s, and Bill Clinton was forthrightly denouncing illegal immigration and liberal giant Barbara Jordan was heading a bipartisan commission that called for enhanced enforcement and reduced levels of legal immigration.

In the interim, Democrats convinced themselves that liberality on immigration has only political upside, and that immigration is in effect a civil-rights issue, and therefore non-negotiable.

Reversing field won't be easy. The House just voted on Kates Law, named after Kate Steinle, the young woman killed in the sanctuary city of San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant who had re-entered the country after being deported five times. The bill strengthens the penalties on repeated illegal re-entry, although it is largely symbolic.

Still, the guidance for Democrats from House Minority Whip Steny Hoyers office warned that the bill appeals to the most right-wing, anti-immigrant base of the Republican Party. Only 24 Democrats could bring themselves to vote for ita measure targeting undocumented immigrants who sneak back into the country after being denied admission or deported on three or more prior occasions. This obviously isn't a party in the mood to learn from 2016.

The pull of the lefts cosmopolitanism is strong. In an attack on Beinart, Dylan Matthews of Vox argues that the lefts egalitarianism can't stop at the nations bordersit means a strong presumption in favor of open immigration.

So, it'd be a mistake to make too much of the recent spate of articles calling for Democrats to rethink this issue. If Democrats are ever going to shift on immigration, though, elite opinion has to change first, and at least there is now an opening.

Our politics is mostly trench warfare, fought over the same unchanging territory. Nevertheless, occasionally the lines shift. Few would have guessed that in the 1990s conservative Republicans, so unreservedly in favor of tough sentencing, would be open to joining liberals on criminal-justice reform. Perhaps Democrats will eventually recalibrate on immigration. If so, the unlikely instrument of the sea change will have been none other than Donald J. Trump.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.

Read this article:
Trump Is Winning the Immigration Debate - Politico

Yet, when push came to shove last week, Casey struck out as the bill was put on hold by the House Republican leadership and two less powerful immigration bills were pushed forward instead.

The fateful Million Dollar Question is what role did the lack of White House engagement in support of Davis-Oliver play in that decision by House Republican leaders to push two less comprehensive measures forward? We cant be certain of the answer. But whatever the relative blame to be allocated to White House timidity versus House Republican leaders perfidy, the result was a fateful preemptive compromise.

When the dust settled, Davis-Oliver was abandoned and two less comprehensive immigration bills made it to the floor and were passed.

The two bills are Kates Law (H.R.3004) and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 1303). The two bills aim at far less than what Davis- Oliver promised, so Republicans should not be popping Champaign corks just yet.

So, what really happened to the Davis-Oliver bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee on May 24? One version says that White House staff preferred going for a quick win for the two simpler bills while holding out the prospect of support for more ambitious bills down the road. According to Iowa Rep. Steve King, The White House still wants the Davis-Oliver bill as well.

The problem with this baby steps first strategy is that no matter how well motivated, it is politically unworkable. It is unlikely we will ever see the day when we see the Davis Oliver bill on the House calendar for a floor vote.

If the two very modest bills passed by the House this week can get over the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, there will be lots of hoopla by our side and lots of Chicken Little protests by the open-borders folks.

But in the long run, not passing the whole enchilada now is a losing strategy based on naive assumptions. How can anyone seriously believe that passing a more ambitious immigration bill in 2018 will be easier than in 2017? It will be harder, not easier. When your car is up on blocks and needs a new engine, do you celebrate the mechanic installing four new tires? Maybe it looks better, but its still not going anywhere. Neither is the White House promise of a real immigration enforcement overhaul down the road.

What is not widely understood or openly acknowledged is that the successful passage of Kates Law and the anti-sanctuary bill will give political cover to Republicans who oppose any action on other, even more controversial priorities like real border security, mandatory E-Verify for employers, ending birthright citizenship, defusing the ticking time-bomb called visa overstays, and other basic reforms that can only be done with active presidential leadership.

As an immigration reformer and a representative from 1999 to 2009, I have seen this happen time and time again. The Congress will respond to pressure by doing a Kabuki dance. They pass something without great substance but do so with great noise and fanfare. Then they leave the stage, never to return until the next Kabuki dance is scheduled.

The two new bills arent much to cheer about.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act simply reinforces a long-established federal law (8 U.S.C.1373) by explicitly authorizing the Department of Justice to withhold DOJ grant funds. It does NOT affect the billions of dollars of federal funds flowing from numerous other federal agencies. However, It does accomplish a few needed reforms:

It targets local government entities that explicitly and formally prohibit law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal law enforcement actions aimed at criminal aliens.

It relieves local government and law enforcement of financial liability in honoring ICE detainers aimed at criminal aliens already in custody: the federal government becomes the defendant in any lawsuit, not the local sheriff.

Because the bill actually has very limited reach financially and despite the intense controversy and the sky-is-falling rhetoric from the left it will have limited impact on sanctuary cities.

Certainly, the anti-sanctuary bill is a good idea. It clarifies and reinforces the federal governments ability to withhold federal grant funds to local law enforcement agencies will help federal enforcement efforts. But it serves no good purpose to exaggerate its likely accomplishment enactment will not end all sanctuary city policies, will not starve sanctuary cities into submission, and will not lead to the deportation of all criminal aliens. It is a modest first step in cracking down on sanctuary policies, but it is not really a game changer.

To see a really root-and-branch attack on sanctuary city policies, look at the new Texas law already signed into law by Texass Governor. It allows the prosecution and jailing of any local sheriff (like in the city of Austin) who refuses to honor federal detainers issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.Now, theres a state-federal partnership a citizen can be proud of!

By comparison, H.R. 3003 is s slap on the wrist, not a kick in the butt.

The hype on Kates Law is also overdone and often misleading.

The bill should be enacted and signed by the President, but by itself, it will not close the revolving door for deported criminal aliens. Only true border security can do that, and the Republican leadership in Congress remains evasive on the funding for Trumps border wall.

Kates Law will set new, more severe penalties in fines and the length of jail terms for criminal aliens who return to the U. S. after being deported, which is obviously a step in the right direction. But the language of the bill does not live up to the hype: It does not establish new minimum mandatory prison sentences as many believe. And why limit the fines and jail terms to only criminal aliens? Why not establish a minimum two-year prison term for any deported illegal alien who returns unlawfully? The bill does not do any of that. Again, you can read the bill for yourself here.

The looming tragedy is this: Without vigorous White House leadership, the Republican immigration enforcement agenda is doomed. Everyone in Washington understands that without Trumps personal leadership and his staff making it a high priority, not many congressional Republicans are going to break their swords on the issue.

The immigration agenda needs to move forward in the first year of Trumps presidency, not year two or three. Ask Reagan-era conservatives how many Reagan campaign proposals found the policy spotlight after 1981. Its hard to name even one.

When you stop to think about it, isnt the lack of priority attached to immigration legislation by the Trump White House quite astounding given the prominence of those campaign promises throughout 2016? While Trump deserves praise for doing those early executive orders, by definition those executive orders when they are legal and not usurpations of the legislative powers of Congress, as in Obamas case are purely administrative and can be revoked or amended by the next president. There are important reforms that require new legislation, and that legislation cannot succeed without presidential leadership.

There is a cruel irony at play here: Unless that White House leadership arrives on the battlefield soon, the immigration reform agenda will die with the passage of Kates Law. Legislation that is sidetracked today will arrive at a dead end tomorrow.

By all means, lets pass these two good bills. But please, can we tone down the celebration until we see some presidential leadership on the immigration reform legislation that really counts over the long term? I think Kate Steinle would appreciate that.

View post:
GOP Insiders Skipped Real Immigration Reform Last Week - Breitbart News

Most Democratic Senators and the partys Senate leadership will oppose the two modest bills. But the bills will become law if the 52 GOP Senators are joined by at least eight Democrats who calculate that GOP-funded campaign attack ads in the 2018elections are a greater risk to their careers than the inevitable pre-election anger from the Democrats anti-reform, anti-GOP base.

In the June 29 House vote, 166 Democratic legislators voted against Kates Law, but 24 Democrats voted for the law, which raises potential jail sentences for repatriated illegals who sneak back into the United States.The bill is named after Kate Steinle, an attractiveyoung womanwho wasmurdered by an illegal alien in 2015 who had returned to the United States multiples times after being sent home.

Only three House Democrats voted for the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which alsopassed June 29. The sanctuarybill allows the federal government to withdraw several categoriesof funds from jurisdictions which hinder the enforcement of immigration law.

White House officials and immigration reformers from advocacy groups NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform are promising an intense P.R. campaign before the eventual Senate vote.

The dilemma facing the Democratic Senators was highlighted by TheHill.com, in an article about the DemocraticSenators who will decide the bills fates:

A top House Democratic aide predicted that Kates Law would be used in campaign ads against vulnerable Democrats.

The ad writes itself, said the aide. Theyre gonna use Kate Steinles picture in a Willie Horton-style ad, referring to a controversial 1988 TV ad used by President George H.W. Bushs campaign against Michael Dukakis

Their targets would likely include Democratic Sens.Claire McCaskill(Mo.),Bob Casey(Pa.),Sherrod Brown(Ohio),Bill Nelson(Fla.) andJon Tester(Mont.) each up for reelection next year in states won by Trump.

Notably, the article also quotes VirginiaSen. Tim Kaine, who promisedDemocratic opposition but did not predict that his party would stop both bills.

Democrats are not going to stand for harsh anti-immigration measures, were not, he said. If theyre not willing to meaningfully dialogue with us about immigration reform, youre not going to see us embracing their super-partisan anti-immigration bill.

Kates law is popular. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters favor a five-year mandatory prison sentence for illegal immigrants convicted of major felonies who return to America after being deported just 27% oppose such legislation, while 18% are undecided, saida 2015 pollby Rasmussen Reports.

Read the TheHill.coms article here.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

View post:
Dem. Senators Calculate Risks On Immigration Reforms - Breitbart News

President Trump vowed during the campaign to deport millions of illegal immigrants, but his plans could be short-circuited by a massive backlog and looming judge shortage that threaten to slow deportation cases to a crawl.

While the administration is tackling the case backlog that built up during the Obama administration, the problem wont be easy to fix, according to a recent government audit. The report found it takes almost a year to bring a deportation case; more than a third of immigration judges are eligible to retire; and the process of hiring a new immigration judge takes nearly two years.

The findings also suggest the recruitment of new judges is not keeping pace with the increase in caseload.

Unless more court slots are filled, those individuals will not be removed from the United States, said Art Arthur, a former federal immigration judge who oversaw cases in York Immigration Court in York, Pa.

HOUSE PASSES KATE'S LAW AS PART OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRACKDOWN

The Government Accountability Office released the report on June 1 and two weeks later, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a third round of new immigration judge appointments, bringing the total to 326 immigration judges currently serving. Expediting the appointment process would be key, since 39 percent of current judges are eligible to retire -- and the GAO found it took an average of 742 days to hire new judges from 2011 through 2016.

Trumps proposed fiscal 2018 budget also would provide $80 million, a 19 percent hike from last year, to hire 75 new immigration judges.

But thats still not enough to cover the cost of the judges needed, argued Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, a pro-border enforcement advocacy group.

Amal Hana, of Warren, Mich., holds a photo of Donald Trump on Friday, June 16, 2017, outside the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building during a protest in Detroit (Tanya Moutzalias/MLive.com via AP)

The Trump administration still has to deal with a lot of what it inherited from the Obama administrations catch-and-release policy, he said. Instead of catch and release, it should have been detain or send across the border. To do that, you need more judges and more courtrooms.

The Justice Departments Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is responsible for conducting immigration court proceedings and appeals, already has begun to address many of the problems outlined by the audit, Justice Department spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said.

For example, on April 11, 2017, the Attorney General implemented a new, streamlined hiring plan for immigration judges that requires just as much vetting as before, but reduces the timeline, Mattingly told Fox News.

She said the office is also working with its federal partners to make the immigration process more efficient, and ensuring that its resources are allocated in the most effective manner, while reviewing internal practices, procedures, and technology in order to identify ways in which it can enhance immigration judge productivity without compromising due process.

The GAO report looked at the challenges facing the immigration review agency between fiscal 2006 and 2015 and found:

There are so many layers of review and a long vetting process, said Arthur, who also previously served as a Justice Department attorney.

Arthur, now a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News the problem with the backlog is that there is generally no downside for judges who grant a continuance of a case, since thats fewer cases to deal with on a given day.

Continued here:
Trump deportation push could get jammed in bureaucratic mess - Fox News

Even as the U.S. moves to tighten border controls and regulate immigration in a way that provides greater benefits and fewer costs to current American citizens, lawmakers should look to address ways that the current system is too arbitrary and draconian. This is one: Children who came here legally and were formally adopted by American citizens should automatically become American citizens. The New York Times reportson the tragic saga of a Korean adoptee who committed suicide after being deported from the U.S.:

Phillip Clay was adopted at 8 into an American family in Philadelphia.

Twenty-nine years later, in 2012, after numerous arrests and a struggle with drug addiction, he was deported back to his birth country,South Korea. He could not speak the local language, did not know a single person and did not receive appropriate care for mental health problems, which included bipolar disorder and alcohol and substance abuse.

On May 21, Mr. Clay ended his life, jumping from the 14th floor of an apartment building north of Seoul. He was 42.

As theTimesnotes, a 2000 law grants automatic citizenship to youngsters adopted into American families after its passage. That law should be amended to apply retroactively.

Liberals and conservatives hold a range of positions on the way the U.S. immigration system should handle so-called Dreamerspeople whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally as children. But while opponents of citizenship for Dreamers can point to the perverse incentives involved in legalizing children of illegal immigrants, there is no such case here. Parents who adopt children into their homes have done nothing wrong; their selflessness should be encouraged.

There are many thorny questions in immigration policy. This is not one of them. Congress should address it soon.

Read the original here:
Immigration Reform Should Fix This - The American Interest