In the political landscape of America, the debate over immigration reveals deep divisions and gridlock. With the House of Representatives changing hands and the Senate barely holding a Democratic majority, immigration has shifted from being a humanitarian issue to a battleground for political conflict. The beginning of President Biden’s term was marked by Republican efforts to use illegal immigration as a divisive issue, overshadowing the bipartisan push for reform. This op-ed explores the complex struggle for compromise and the extreme challenges in reaching an agreement, highlighting the absurdity that surrounds the immigration debate today.
U.S. citizens have been deeply divided by the issue of immigration. At this point we, as a nation, are in a gridlock with little room for compromise. The last administration implemented a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal immigration. The policy made little to no distinction between those illegally crossing the border and those seeking asylum and refuge. This stance resulted in inhumane captivity and the traumatic separation of thousands of families. Once aware of the situation, a wave of empathy washed over the public. People who resented what they considered to be an invasion had a difficult time ignoring the blatant cruelty of the treatment. Republicans attempted to spin the narrative by telling the public that the practice began under the Obama administration. It was a false equivalency. Obama certainly retained the undocumented immigrants, but the extent of the cruelty was definitely a feature provided by Donald Trump.
This brought about widespread unrest and criticism. Some argued that the treatment was a violation of international law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and that their best interests must be a primary consideration in all decisions that are made about them. The “zero tolerance” policy made a priority of interests of the U.S. government rather than the children.
The change in administration brought a change in policy. Legal and illegal immigration is treated with finer distinction and more compassion. There is an attempt to reunite separated families. The process has been slow and there are many families who are still waiting to be reunited. Another humanitarian change is in the quality of the detention centers. The addition of both medical care and legal representation has been incorporated.
The security of the border remained intact if not improved overall. Drug trafficking has been managed effectively although not eliminated. There is always room for improvement, but all indications point to stability and an upward climb to the betterment of the situation. Unfortunately, the facts are not reflected in the Republicans’ messaging. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story (or fearmongering in this case).
Despite the tension and passion devoted to the subject matter, recent progress among the political parties has been made… almost. The Republicans are holding foreign aid hostage during a period when it is imperative to ensure the success of the Ukrainians in their war with Russia. In addition, there are what I would (personally) consider skirmishes (rather than out right declared war) between Israel and Palestine. That is another problem which may require more of our aid, if not just for humanitarian assistance.
The Republicans have seized this as an opportunity to force the Biden administration to enact changes to the United States southern border. They argue that we (the Americans) are under attack and are presenting this issue as a war of our own. They believe we should be focusing on ourselves before others. Their argument and fearmongering among their base are completely disingenuous. During the first two years of the Trump administration, there was a red trifecta of power, and they did nothing to improve the situation in terms of security, trafficking, and definitely not humanitarian conditions. While they have never been happy with the situation it is only a political issue when it is politically expedient.
In order to respond to their demands in short order, President Biden allocated 14 billion dollars to Homeland Security to make improvements to “secure” the border. This was rejected as insufficient. The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson told CNN’s Jake Tapper that it wouldn’t help. He made the (once again) disingenuous claim that if the whole problem couldn’t be solved then there is no point in spending money on it.
The truth is that neither party is willing to invest the time, resources or effort required to make a significant, long-term solution. There are measures that can be taken now that would help not just in the long-term, but the positive effects could be felt along the way. This could begin with providing additional legal pathways to enter the United States. Increasing the allowance of visas for skilled workers. With this approach, there would need to be a greater method of monitoring of the immigrates whose residence is only temporary. An ignored factor is the number of undocumented residents, doesn’t come from crossing the border but from those who legally enter but fail to return at the appropriate time.
I have always felt that invest the foreign nations themselves would be a good deterrence from unlawful entry. I don’t see why we can’t promote industrial development in the countries south of the United States. Improving national security could be a start. Fending off corruption and supplying them with whatever they need to maintain the safety of the businesses and workers. The drug cartels would have a challenging time intimidating and overrunning facilities that are directly owned by U.S. citizens or corporations. I would assume attacking a company backed by the U.S. would cause more hesitation than they are customed too. Adding experienced armed security would further discourage any disruption caused by organized crime.
Rooting out unchecked violence in Latin America would be a key role in reducing the influx of refugees. The risk the immigrants take just getting to the border isn’t a joke. I’m sure they would prefer to feel safe in their own country. I know cost is a factor, but even in the short term there would be a substantial return on the investment. The reduction in the budget required for border security would steadily diminish, if not quickly as their economy improves. I’m not sure what it would take to appreciatively taper the violence, or how long it would take. I am sure it will never end if it never starts.
The mature version of the Republicans, by which I refer to the Republican Senators, have been collaborating with the Democrats on a border security bill for months. They are currently at a point where they consider the bill almost ready to pass. They are already met with premature obstruction in the House of Representatives by those who do not want to solve the problem, as Mike Johnson has demonstrated. There was objection to the bill sight unseen. The obstruction escalated when Donald Trump called Speaker Mike Johnson to not pass the bill, because he needs to use it as a campaign issue against Joe Biden. Trump has publicly promoted the bill as bad despite the fact that he hasn’t seen it (at least he shouldn’t have seen it).
Even though this information is completely public and broadcasted on right and left mainstream media, there are sure to be thousands of Trump supporters who will remain blind to the deliberate insult to their (lack of) intelligence. These tactics are far from veiled but remain incredibly effective among is base. They prefer to listen and obey instead utilizing individual thought. Just as he predicted the election would be stolen if he didn’t win, they believed it once the time came. All it took was planting a kernel of premeditated doubt, for them to conclude that he was right all along. He told them in 2016 that the election was rigged against him, but he won, so no one thought anything of it. He did the same thing in 2020, but he lost in that election. They completely fell in line with the lie he planted. None of them seemed to make the connection. They were unable to connect the congruity of the claims to the incongruity of the outcomes. Of all the interviews that I’ve watched of Trump supports, only one woman addressed the fact that he claimed the election would be stolen and he did nothing to prevent it. That itself is false, he made many attempts to thwart the process of an orderly election. By having the mail sorting machines destroyed, he put the entire mail-in voting system at risk, because he knew Joe Biden had a significant advantage with those votes. The attack on the postal service proved to be an insufficient disruption. Throughout that whole ordeal the one thing he did that I can’t call deception was when he wouldn’t commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
— Citizen Mooney