The truth remains that illegal immigration is eroding support for legal immigration due to the mayhem at the border. One thing the president and the Democrats should know is that most Americans would respect a politician big enough to acknowledge when the other guy has a point, even if his name is Trump.
Imagine a scenario where a centrist third party could actually gain traction in American presidential elections. While it might not seem feasible at the moment, the most compelling reason for such a party would revolve around the ongoing mass migration occurring in the western hemisphere. This migration issue is pushing both major political parties to adopt positions that, quite frankly, come across as shortsighted and, in some cases, inhumane.
The surge in illegal border crossings in the
southern United States is undoubtedly a complex problem. However, it requires a
thoughtful, multifaceted approach to find solutions that work for everyone.
Unfortunately, the current state of American politics has led Democrats and
Republicans to propose overly simplistic, mutually opposing solutions. These
proposals not only make compromise seem impossible but also defy common sense.
A striking example of this polarization
emerged in early October when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
revealed plans to construct an additional 20 miles of barriers along the Rio
Grande in southeastern Texas. During his campaign, Joe Biden had made a strong
promise not to build "another foot" of wall. This shift in stance
invited sharp criticism and accusations of hypocrisy, illustrating just how
deeply divided our nation has become on this issue. And when the press
confronted the president within the confines of the Oval Office, his response
was a straightforward one: Congress left him with no other option. This
assertion held some truth. Back in 2019, Congress had allocated a substantial
sum of $1.375 billion explicitly for the purpose of erecting a barrier system
along the south-west border. Despite fervent efforts to persuade Congress to
reallocate those funds elsewhere, the Biden administration faced the genuine
threat of violating the law if they failed to take action.
When questioned about his belief in the
effectiveness of a border wall, Mr. Biden's response was unequivocal: No. It
was a resounding denial. The issue at hand, however, extended beyond mere
hypocrisy; it delved into the realm of sheer absurdity. Mr. Biden's response
failed to align with a notion that would be apparent to any child: that walls,
indeed, can be effective, but their effectiveness is contingent upon various
factors and circumstances.
In the midst of the debate surrounding the
effectiveness of border barriers, President Biden found himself facing a
complex predicament. He could have drawn attention to a practical example right
in front of him: the fence encircling the White House. This security measure,
he might have argued, demonstrated why, during his time as a senator, he had
cast votes in favor of constructing border barriers under both Democratic
President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush. Furthermore, he
could have highlighted the fact that during his tenure as Vice President in
Barack Obama's administration, they had overseen the addition of more new miles
of barrier compared to the subsequent Trump administration. (It's worth noting
that while Trump's administration built 458 miles of wall, the majority of that
replaced existing barriers, whereas the Obama administration added 130
incremental miles.)
Biden could have even referenced the
Department of Homeland Security's 2023 budget, which explicitly states that
barriers can effectively hinder and deter illicit cross-border activity by
providing law enforcement with an increased response time. However, such
nuanced explanations eluded him. The looming specter of former President
Trump's grandiose promise to construct a colossal wall spanning nearly 2,000
miles along the border had constrained Biden's flexibility. Undoubtedly,
investing in a border wall holds merit; it serves as a necessary measure even
in areas where natural barriers exist. In remote regions where patrolling is
feasible, a wall is less susceptible to evasion by smugglers attempting to
breach it, a tactic employed numerous times in the past.
Yet, for President Biden, acknowledging the
role that barriers can play in securing the border presented a conundrum. To do
so would be to concede that Mr. Trump's stance was not entirely misguided.
This, Biden's advisors recognized, would be perceived as anathema by the
progressive base of the Democratic party.
The proposed new segments of the wall are
slated to traverse Starr County, Texas, within the district of Representative
Henry Cuellar, a Democrat. Cuellar holds reservations about the effectiveness
of these barriers in his district, advocating instead for the allocation of
resources towards increasing border agents and enhancing surveillance
equipment. He expresses frustration over the reluctance of fellow Democrats to
take concrete steps to secure the border. In a personal incident that brought
the issue close to home, Cuellar was carjacked at gunpoint in Washington in
early October. Although he emerged unharmed and commendably composed, he
couldn't help but feel irked at having his sushi stolen along with his car.
Seizing the opportunity when President Biden called to express concern, Cuellar
emphasized the need for a balanced approach. He urged the President to
understand that Democrats could simultaneously champion border security while
respecting the rights of immigrants. In response, Biden appeared receptive and
expressed a willingness to continue the conversation. The delicate balancing
act of addressing border security while upholding progressive ideals remained a
challenge at the forefront of Democratic politics.
In his latest book, "The Last
Politician," Franklin Foer delves into the complex relationship between
President Biden and the Democratic Party's shifting stance on immigration. Foer
highlights that immigration was a significant area where Biden found himself at
odds with the leftward trajectory of his evolving party. During his candidacy,
Biden expressed concerns that embracing progressive immigration policies might
alienate working-class voters in the rustbelt regions, a crucial demographic for
Democrats. However, in his quest to secure the party's nomination, Biden
realized that he needed to commit to a significant reversal of Trump's
immigration policies, signaling a strategic shift in his approach.
Until recently, President Biden appeared
comfortable with this strategic calculation, even as the situation at the
border grew increasingly chaotic. The specter of Donald Trump, with his
divisive rhetoric and policies, seemed to loom large, making it unlikely for
suburban voters to defect to the former president. It was as though Biden aimed
to remind voters why they had turned to him in the 2020 election and why the
notion of a centrist third-party alternative, which had the potential to split
the vote and benefit Trump, appeared unwise.
Now, don't get me wrong: I am a Republican,
as I have stated in my previous articles, and I do like Trump. I also voted for
him in the last election. However, I do not support his foreign policies,
especially his desire to dismantle NATO and other international structures
established by America, which have maintained world peace and cooperation for
over seven decades. Furthermore, Trump's recent incendiary remarks
characterizing migrants as "poisoning the blood of our country" only
served to reinforce the contrasting image of his presidency when compared to
Biden's more inclusive approach.
The dynamics of immigration policy within the
Democratic Party and the broader political landscape continue to evolve.
President Biden's challenge lies in navigating these changes while maintaining
a cohesive party and addressing the pressing issues at the border. The debate
over immigration remains a central and contentious aspect of American politics,
with Biden's presidency serving as a litmus test for the delicate balance
between progressive ideals and electoral pragmatism.
Border Bloopers
The surge of migrants arriving in cities and
states represented by Democrats has become a pressing issue in the United
States. The nation's immigration system, originally designed to manage the
influx of single men from Mexico seeking employment, now faces a different
challenge: families and individuals traveling from Venezuela and other distant
regions. Unlike previous waves of migrants who often had contacts in America to
help them integrate, these newcomers often find themselves staying in shelters,
which places additional strain on public budgets.
In response to this evolving situation, there
is a growing consensus that America needs to adopt a multifaceted approach to
address the challenges at its borders. Suggestions range from the construction
of a border wall to the allocation of more resources for border agents, asylum
officials, and additional beds at the border. Another aspect of this solution
involves greater flexibility in the ability to send migrants to other safe
countries and the implementation of stricter consequences for those crossing the
border illegally without legitimate claims. While some of these changes could
be initiated through executive action by President Biden, many require
congressional action, making them part of a larger policy debate.
As reported in The Economist, Andrew Selee of
the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, believes that
the approaching budget negotiations offer a glimmer of hope for a compromise on
these immigration challenges. While he acknowledges that a deal is not highly probable,
he points out that there is now a more promising pathway forward than there was
just a month ago. This newfound optimism is driven by a perceived willingness
from the administration to explore tougher options and an increasing concern
among Republicans about unfilled job positions. It's possible that enhanced
border security may become part of the price for securing funding related to
the Ukraine situation, further incentivizing both sides to find common ground.
In this complex and polarized political
landscape, addressing the issue of immigration presents an opportunity for
President Biden to bridge the divide. By acknowledging the real challenges
posed by illegal immigration and engaging in meaningful dialogue with
opponents, he has the chance to demonstrate leadership that transcends partisan
lines. Such an approach may not only pave the way for practical solutions but
also garner respect from most Americans who appreciate politicians willing to
recognize valid concerns, even when they come from unexpected sources, perhaps
even from someone with the name Trump.
Once again, let me reiterate what I just
stated: The President should perceive the current situation as a unique
opportunity to address an urgent matter. The ongoing issue of illegal
immigration possesses the potential to erode public support for legal immigration,
which is a crucial component of America's identity as a nation of immigrants.
By demonstrating a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and
bipartisan cooperation, even when dealing with political opponents such as
former President Trump, the President can garner the respect of the American
people. Recognizing valid concerns and discovering common ground can pave the
way for comprehensive immigration reform that harmonizes border security with
compassionate and equitable immigration policies, ultimately benefiting both
the nation and its citizens.
Notes
Democrats reiterate demand:
Reopen the government before negotiations on border security. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 3,
2023, from
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/politics/democrats-shutdown/index.html
Foer, F. (2023). The Last
Politician: Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's
Future. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Press.
Jones, R. P. (2023, November
16). Commentary: With ‘Vermin,’ Donald Trump Crosses Fully into Nazi
Territory. Retrieved from The Salt Lake Tribune:
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/11/16/commentary-with-vermin-donald/
S.744 - Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 3,
2023, from Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744
Sprunt, B. (2020, August 5).
Biden Would End Border Wall Construction, But Wouldn't Tear Down Trump's
Additions. Retrieved from NPR News:
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/899266045/biden-would-end-border-wall-construction-but-wont-tear-down-trump-s-additions
The Economist. (2023,
October 12). Lexington: Joe Biden Should Admit Republicans are (Partly)
Right About Border Security. Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/10/12/joe-biden-should-admit-republicans-are-partly-right-about-border-security
The White House. (2023,
January 5). Remarks by President Biden on Border Security and Enforcement.
Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/01/05/remarks-by-president-biden-on-border-security-and-enforcement/
No comments:
Post a Comment