I think most of us agree recent crossing numbers were unsustainable - not because immigrants are dangerous (data shows the opposite), but because no system could adequately support such an influx. The real shame is our leaders' poverty of imagination. The choice they give seems binary: do nothing, or dehumanize migrants until America loses its identity as a beacon of hope.
If someone were crafting immigration policy with a real goal of fixing the problem, they'd focus on efficient asylum processing with expanded courts to resolve cases within weeks, not years - this would quickly identify legitimate asylum seekers while discouraging those using the system for economic migration.
They’d invest in smart border technology that targets trafficking while maintaining dignified legal crossing points.
They’d pursue meaningful partnerships with Mexico and Central American countries on economic development and anti-corruption initiatives that address the desperation driving migration in the first place.
For labor needs, they’d create streamlined seasonal work visas that respond to actual market demands without bureaucratic hurdles, which would redirect people from dangerous illegal crossings to orderly legal channels.
For those already integrated into our communities, they’d implement an earned legalization process with appropriate consequences that doesn't tear families apart and acknowledges the reality that mass deportation is neither practical nor consistent with our values as a nation that has historically benefited from immigration.
Now here is the big picture question: Why are our leaders so drawn to this false binary?
I believe it reflects a deeper dysfunction in our political system. Elections reward simplistic, emotionally charged solutions to complex problems - "build a wall" or "abolish ICE" make better campaign slogans than nuanced policy prescriptions. Our two-party system further entrenches this polarization, with each side retreating to their base rather than collaborating on workable solutions. Just as troublingly, the 24-hour news cycle and social media algorithms amplify the most extreme voices while moderate perspectives receive little attention.
Perhaps immigration, like healthcare, represents an issue where market-driven politics fails us. When human dignity and lives are at stake, should these decisions be subject to the same political calculations that govern tax policy or infrastructure spending? The commodification of human movement - treating migrants as either economic threats or exploitable labor - reveals the limits of applying purely economic frameworks to fundamentally human issues. Our election system simply isn't designed to handle problems requiring long-term, consistent policies that transcend administration changes.
One potential solution to remove immigration from the polarized political arena would be creating an independent, nonpartisan Immigration Commission modeled after the Federal Reserve. This commission would be staffed by experts in economics, humanitarian policy, border security, and international relations, serving staggered terms that cross administrations. They would set annual migration targets based on labor market needs, humanitarian concerns, and integration capacity—not electoral cycles. While Congress would establish broad parameters and oversight, the commission would have authority to adjust visa allocations, processing procedures, and enforcement priorities without requiring legislative approval for each decision.
For this to work, we would need a constitutional moment—a bipartisan agreement that immigration, like monetary policy, functions better with consistency and expert management than as a perpetual campaign issue. Paired with this would be local integration councils giving communities meaningful input into resettlement decisions, creating stakeholder buy-in.
Effective immigration policy requires both technical expertise and long-term planning that our current political system simply cannot provide when the issue remains a partisan football.
That being said, I think many politicians prefer the chaos of the status quo, because everything I just wrote doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.
Spot on. One other factor working against a humane, practical solution to the dysfunctional immigration system is for-profit detention centers. Lobbyists position these centers as job creators for rural areas and back the campaigns of hard-liners. The facility in Eloy, AZ, proudly displays a sign touting the number of jobs it creates. The alternative story about immigrant contributions to the tax base, local economy, and social security system don’t get any air time.
Thanks but no thanks! You couldn't pay me enough to get into politics. Even though I know there are some truly amazing people who run for and get into office, I also wonder, in general, what kinds of personality flaws you'd need to get there. You'd have to either want to be a martyr or a tyrant. Not my cup of tea!
Wake me up when the system rewards politicians for successful policy, but in the meantime I'll be aiming for a retirement that involves starting a dog rescue on a farm or something. 🐕
I think it is not accurate to state that our leaders do only two things with respect to immigration: nothing or dehumanizing. What was left out of your thoughtful analysis is all of the policies instituted by the Biden Admin. to improve things, even in a climate where Congress repeatedly refused requests for funding, refused to pass any helpful legislation and instead, along with the current president, did everything it could to preserve immigration as a campaign issue.
Thank you for this reply, and I partially agree. The current political environment would not allow anything productive to happen in regards to immigration, so perhaps blaming the past administration for not getting us closer to a functioning system isn't fair. And congress with support from Biden almost did something helpful, but it was kneecapped by election season sabotage by MAGA specifically to keep it a political issue. Obviously that sabotage is unconscionable.
But to be honest, even if solutions were out of reach, I would have hoped for a more vocal stance from Biden on what the system should be and how to get there. Instead what we mostly got was dodging and denying the issue until they couldn't afford to ignore it anymore.
Both parties have failed to articulate a coherent vision for immigration that balances humanitarian concerns with practical realities. It leaves a vacuum filled by the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides. I'm not trying to make a "both sides are just as bad" argument, but I'm saying that Democrats are letting Republicans steer the ship. They have power to change that by engaging with it as an issue that voters care about.
There is only one reason why people feel like Democrats let “Republicans steer the ship” on certain topics and Jonathan Swift summarized it best:
“Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…”
Or, as the old saying goes, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth even puts on its shoes. Scare mongering and gross, lurid dehumanization get way more attention than facts and mundane policy analysis. I do blame Dems for deficient messaging and allowing Republican lies regarding immigrants to go largely unchallenged but there is no way a change in the criteria for granting asylum will ever get as many clicks as the murder of Laken Riley as it was used to symbolize rampant migrant crime.
You should listen to the podcast Ezra Klein did last Sept. with Alejandro Mayorkas, the Sec’y of Homeland Security, where Mayorkas methodically laid out all of the actions the Biden Admin took on immigration, completely separate from the failed bipartisan immigration bill, actions that took some time to formulate and put into effect but that are now paying dividends. Some of them are exactly what you laid out in your OP: 1. When Congress refused to allocate funds for more immigration judges and courts Biden made it possible for asylum officers to have more power to decide cases and streamline the process; 2. Biden used technology to develop the CBPOne App so people could seek appointments without coming to the border; 3. Biden had a huge program to tackle the root causes of immigration in the northern triangle countries that ended up bringing in billions of dollars in private investment. We can agree to disagree but when you say the Biden Admin was just dodging and denying without taking concrete actions, that in itself is ignoring reality.
Thanks, Kate! I will absolutely listen to that Mayorkas interview, adding it to my queue now. And it's a tricky thing to argue that Dems need to do better without sounding like I'm equating the two sides. I'll admit I am not an expert in what has been done or attempted by Biden, and like you said, inflammatory news travels a lot faster than anything about policy. My main critique is that anyone who had the preconceived notion that Democrats are afraid of talking about immigration had example after example proving that notion to be true. Policies unknown to the public don't help steer the ship that much. A coherent and transparent strategy announced by the president at a press conference would be much easier to encounter than something like a cabinet member on a NYTimes Opinion podcast interview. That all said, I'm going to listen to it because I am curious. :) Thanks again for your feedback!
I think you’re wistfully stuck back in the good old days before social media, when the president could make a policy speech and it would be covered far and wide by mainstream media and all the regular folks would know about it. Those days are long gone. Biden let Congress do its job for quite a while, probably too long, when both parties were engaged in months of tough negotiations to reach consensus on the comprehensive immigration bill. I don’t see the utility of Biden coming out with some all-encompassing strategy while that was going on and nobody knew what funding would be available for what or what would even end up in the bill. He would have been accused of trying to bypass Congress or heavy-handedly imposing his will or some such nonsense. When negotiations with partner countries were complete or the technology was workable or the money was scraped together for other actions, they were all announced. Even then, look what happened when they did the big rollout of the Root Causes initiative. Harris was deemed the Border Czar and was accused of causing every bad thing that happened at the border. But the White House put out the info for anyone to see, if they cared. Most people didn’t, though, and only cared about “saying her name.” Let me know what you think of the podcast.
wistful doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings! thanks for this perspective. I do agree with you that Democrats were in a damned if they do or don’t situation, and my take is an easy critique from the sidelines. Maybe they did everything the best they could. I just know that even from my perspective, as someone who pays very close attention and even seeks out the information, I somehow missed anything that looked like immigration was a top priority.
Timothy, thank you for your always thought- and hope-provoking solutions.
It cannot be over-emphasized that our last administration actually attempted a bi-bipartisan solution, and it was opposed by this current administration.
Absolutely, without a doubt there was nearly a bipartisan victory and the current administration sabotaged it to keep immigration as a campaign issue. If only that were more obvious to voters in general, who have come to the misconception that Republicans want to solve problems at the border.
Love so many of these ideas. These are the solutions needed that are far less costly and way more humane than a worthless wall, paying for profit companies for deportation housing facilities and elaborate ICE drama theatrics.
I didn't even get into the economics of how much money we waste on this current chaotic system, but there you go! Another example of where DOGE could probably do some good, if only their goals were actually making things more efficient and saving money. If only...
The military contractors’ pitch for a “small army of private citizens empowered to make arrests” is utterly unconscionable. I’ll pray that aspect never, ever comes to light.
Oh Gabe, it is never a good idea to use MAGA-worshipping Marc Thiessen to try to support your argument regarding the one supposed “success” of Trump’s immigration policies. Thiessen’s alleged “data” was completely cherry-picked and manipulated in a pathetic attempt to prove his point. Let’s just leave aside for now the inconvenient facts that border encounters always drop in the winter, consumer and business sentiment on our economic condition is souring and just generally, people don’t flee repressive, lawless regimes to come to another one. Here are the facts on border encounters in 2024, a year in which they declined dramatically:
Encounters with citizens of Venezuela plunged 99% between December 2023 and August 2024, from 46,918 to 626.
Encounters with citizens of Cuba fell 98%, from 4,964 to 104.
Encounters with citizens of Haiti fell 97%, from 1,392 to 46.
Encounters with citizens of Nicaragua fell 96%, from 8,176 to 297.
Encounters with citizens of Peru fell 95%, from 5,742 to 312.
Encounters with citizens of Ecuador fell 84%, from 16,951 to 2,676.
Encounters with citizens of Colombia fell 80%, from 17,874 to 3,531.
Encounters with citizens of China fell 75%, from 5,951 to 1,472.
And why? Mostly because the pandemic ended and Biden took concrete steps to stem the flow, such as raising the bar for granting asylum requests, increasing the number of legal pathways to enter the country, instituting new technologies to allow migrants to make appointments for pre-approved entry before coming to the border, developing a parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to be pre-vetted and arrive here safely by air, authorizing other means of accessing humanitarian aid as an alternative to just showing up at the southern border, opening Safe Mobility Offices in Columbia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica where people can safely make claims in their home countries without making the dangerous journey here and using public/private partnerships to invest billions in the root causes of migration in the northern triangle countries. All of this was accomplished even though Trump killed the bipartisan immigration bill and without terrifying migrant roundups in schools and churches, plans to round up and deport children, stranding planeloads of migrants in strange countries or using the U.S. military’s personnel and resources for migrant roundups and detentions.
Thanks for this detail. I think violent rhetoric is certainly some kind of a way to decrease immigration, but not the most ethical nor moral way. I’d much prefer a system that works for and with people, not against people.
And despite Sharon working (pretty hard in my opinion) to give voice to people all over the political spectrum in the articles posted here, people will still insist that this is a left-leaning source or "liberal rag." I consistently fail to see how that is remotely true!
People like Trump always use a boogeyman to make fascism seem like a good idea - a group supposedly responsible for all of a country's problems. A scapegoat to make people okay with unconstitutional power grabs. Trump actuallly uses several - immigrants, LGBTQ+, right now it's Federal workers. These actions are never really about saving money, reducing crime, or restoring family values. These are merely excuses to grab more power and enrich certain people.
And once again it bears repeating, the people who need to be kicked out of the country are not the immigrants. If we kicked out all the people working in the White House, we would already be in a much better standing, safety wise, morally and world wide.
No one is suggesting the removal of legal immigrants.
I do not understand the perpetual outrage when the deportation numbers remain essentially unchanged regardless of leadership. On top of that, I see many people questioning the validity of any Trump success. What are we complaining about here?
To make sure I’m understanding what you’re saying- you believe that everyone in the Whitehouse should be kicked out of our country? Do you believe in a one-party system? How would kicking everyone out making us safer, wiser, and in much better standing?
Because then we would have competent, smart, compassionate, non-felon people working in the administration who value democracy, the separation of powers and America’s unique position in the world!
I’m guessing the implication is that this particular administration is not creating the safe, moral environment that would make the country better. I think a lot of people distinguish between a Republican/conservative viewpoint generally versus the MAGA Trump ideology. My guess is that this poster is indicating we’d be better without the MAGA heads, though still welcomes opinions all along the spectrum. At least that’s what I read into it - but I’ll let Krause Kim speak for themself.
Meanwhile, Trump is letting rich people but their way in without showing that they would employ anyone (or, presumably that they're not criminals or loyal to a dictator). Also, while the scare tactics about immigrants centered on the supposed likelihood of them being violent criminals and drug dealers (despite data to the contrary), Trump has pardoned a large scale drug dealer, and not only did he pardon ALL the J6 seditionists, he extended the pardon to separate crimes including domestic violence for the ones that weren't released due to them.
That this man is directing them to focus on immigrant CHILDREN because he wants to up his deportation numbers is horrendous. So much for the claim that it's about getting "violent immigrant criminals" off our streets.
I enjoyed this analysis. I must admit there was a part of me that laughed at one of the reasons their scheme has not been effective (thankfully). They hindered themselves by firing the people who process deportation.
I am skeptical of the border numbers Gabe has cited. For a few reasons:
1. This administration has a TIGHT control of what data is put out. I can’t say I trust it, but I have not seen other data to compare it too.
2. If people are really not crossing the border, do we also seen a reduction in human trafficking? Historically, these tactics may stop border crossings we can see, but then trafficking flourishes.
I will have to wait and see what happens, but I don’t necessarily take the low border numbers as a sign of success. That not to say that “Open Borders” means no trafficking, there was a surge in the last year. However closing borders doesn’t address the root causes of forced migration. It just makes situations harder to track.
Can ANYONE explain why so many republican leaders are staying quiet or worse, reversing course when it comes to Russia? Wicker, Graham, etc all deleted their praise of Zelensky today. I don’t understand why they’re all just letting this happen.
Thank you for this reporting, Gabe!
I think most of us agree recent crossing numbers were unsustainable - not because immigrants are dangerous (data shows the opposite), but because no system could adequately support such an influx. The real shame is our leaders' poverty of imagination. The choice they give seems binary: do nothing, or dehumanize migrants until America loses its identity as a beacon of hope.
If someone were crafting immigration policy with a real goal of fixing the problem, they'd focus on efficient asylum processing with expanded courts to resolve cases within weeks, not years - this would quickly identify legitimate asylum seekers while discouraging those using the system for economic migration.
They’d invest in smart border technology that targets trafficking while maintaining dignified legal crossing points.
They’d pursue meaningful partnerships with Mexico and Central American countries on economic development and anti-corruption initiatives that address the desperation driving migration in the first place.
For labor needs, they’d create streamlined seasonal work visas that respond to actual market demands without bureaucratic hurdles, which would redirect people from dangerous illegal crossings to orderly legal channels.
For those already integrated into our communities, they’d implement an earned legalization process with appropriate consequences that doesn't tear families apart and acknowledges the reality that mass deportation is neither practical nor consistent with our values as a nation that has historically benefited from immigration.
Now here is the big picture question: Why are our leaders so drawn to this false binary?
I believe it reflects a deeper dysfunction in our political system. Elections reward simplistic, emotionally charged solutions to complex problems - "build a wall" or "abolish ICE" make better campaign slogans than nuanced policy prescriptions. Our two-party system further entrenches this polarization, with each side retreating to their base rather than collaborating on workable solutions. Just as troublingly, the 24-hour news cycle and social media algorithms amplify the most extreme voices while moderate perspectives receive little attention.
Perhaps immigration, like healthcare, represents an issue where market-driven politics fails us. When human dignity and lives are at stake, should these decisions be subject to the same political calculations that govern tax policy or infrastructure spending? The commodification of human movement - treating migrants as either economic threats or exploitable labor - reveals the limits of applying purely economic frameworks to fundamentally human issues. Our election system simply isn't designed to handle problems requiring long-term, consistent policies that transcend administration changes.
One potential solution to remove immigration from the polarized political arena would be creating an independent, nonpartisan Immigration Commission modeled after the Federal Reserve. This commission would be staffed by experts in economics, humanitarian policy, border security, and international relations, serving staggered terms that cross administrations. They would set annual migration targets based on labor market needs, humanitarian concerns, and integration capacity—not electoral cycles. While Congress would establish broad parameters and oversight, the commission would have authority to adjust visa allocations, processing procedures, and enforcement priorities without requiring legislative approval for each decision.
For this to work, we would need a constitutional moment—a bipartisan agreement that immigration, like monetary policy, functions better with consistency and expert management than as a perpetual campaign issue. Paired with this would be local integration councils giving communities meaningful input into resettlement decisions, creating stakeholder buy-in.
Effective immigration policy requires both technical expertise and long-term planning that our current political system simply cannot provide when the issue remains a partisan football.
That being said, I think many politicians prefer the chaos of the status quo, because everything I just wrote doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.
I always enjoy reading your comments! You have some great ideas here for tackling immigration issues.
Thank you! And I appreciate the Daria profile picture. :)
I agree!
Spot on. One other factor working against a humane, practical solution to the dysfunctional immigration system is for-profit detention centers. Lobbyists position these centers as job creators for rural areas and back the campaigns of hard-liners. The facility in Eloy, AZ, proudly displays a sign touting the number of jobs it creates. The alternative story about immigrant contributions to the tax base, local economy, and social security system don’t get any air time.
Excellent point, the perverse incentives aren't even hidden.
I vote for Timothy! ☺️
Thanks but no thanks! You couldn't pay me enough to get into politics. Even though I know there are some truly amazing people who run for and get into office, I also wonder, in general, what kinds of personality flaws you'd need to get there. You'd have to either want to be a martyr or a tyrant. Not my cup of tea!
Wake me up when the system rewards politicians for successful policy, but in the meantime I'll be aiming for a retirement that involves starting a dog rescue on a farm or something. 🐕
Hey that's what I want to do! Except with cats. <3
I think it is not accurate to state that our leaders do only two things with respect to immigration: nothing or dehumanizing. What was left out of your thoughtful analysis is all of the policies instituted by the Biden Admin. to improve things, even in a climate where Congress repeatedly refused requests for funding, refused to pass any helpful legislation and instead, along with the current president, did everything it could to preserve immigration as a campaign issue.
Thank you for this reply, and I partially agree. The current political environment would not allow anything productive to happen in regards to immigration, so perhaps blaming the past administration for not getting us closer to a functioning system isn't fair. And congress with support from Biden almost did something helpful, but it was kneecapped by election season sabotage by MAGA specifically to keep it a political issue. Obviously that sabotage is unconscionable.
But to be honest, even if solutions were out of reach, I would have hoped for a more vocal stance from Biden on what the system should be and how to get there. Instead what we mostly got was dodging and denying the issue until they couldn't afford to ignore it anymore.
Both parties have failed to articulate a coherent vision for immigration that balances humanitarian concerns with practical realities. It leaves a vacuum filled by the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides. I'm not trying to make a "both sides are just as bad" argument, but I'm saying that Democrats are letting Republicans steer the ship. They have power to change that by engaging with it as an issue that voters care about.
There is only one reason why people feel like Democrats let “Republicans steer the ship” on certain topics and Jonathan Swift summarized it best:
“Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…”
Or, as the old saying goes, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth even puts on its shoes. Scare mongering and gross, lurid dehumanization get way more attention than facts and mundane policy analysis. I do blame Dems for deficient messaging and allowing Republican lies regarding immigrants to go largely unchallenged but there is no way a change in the criteria for granting asylum will ever get as many clicks as the murder of Laken Riley as it was used to symbolize rampant migrant crime.
You should listen to the podcast Ezra Klein did last Sept. with Alejandro Mayorkas, the Sec’y of Homeland Security, where Mayorkas methodically laid out all of the actions the Biden Admin took on immigration, completely separate from the failed bipartisan immigration bill, actions that took some time to formulate and put into effect but that are now paying dividends. Some of them are exactly what you laid out in your OP: 1. When Congress refused to allocate funds for more immigration judges and courts Biden made it possible for asylum officers to have more power to decide cases and streamline the process; 2. Biden used technology to develop the CBPOne App so people could seek appointments without coming to the border; 3. Biden had a huge program to tackle the root causes of immigration in the northern triangle countries that ended up bringing in billions of dollars in private investment. We can agree to disagree but when you say the Biden Admin was just dodging and denying without taking concrete actions, that in itself is ignoring reality.
Thank you, Kate, for amplifying solutions. By sharing them, you not only make be better informed, but also a better advocate.
Thanks, Kate! I will absolutely listen to that Mayorkas interview, adding it to my queue now. And it's a tricky thing to argue that Dems need to do better without sounding like I'm equating the two sides. I'll admit I am not an expert in what has been done or attempted by Biden, and like you said, inflammatory news travels a lot faster than anything about policy. My main critique is that anyone who had the preconceived notion that Democrats are afraid of talking about immigration had example after example proving that notion to be true. Policies unknown to the public don't help steer the ship that much. A coherent and transparent strategy announced by the president at a press conference would be much easier to encounter than something like a cabinet member on a NYTimes Opinion podcast interview. That all said, I'm going to listen to it because I am curious. :) Thanks again for your feedback!
I think you’re wistfully stuck back in the good old days before social media, when the president could make a policy speech and it would be covered far and wide by mainstream media and all the regular folks would know about it. Those days are long gone. Biden let Congress do its job for quite a while, probably too long, when both parties were engaged in months of tough negotiations to reach consensus on the comprehensive immigration bill. I don’t see the utility of Biden coming out with some all-encompassing strategy while that was going on and nobody knew what funding would be available for what or what would even end up in the bill. He would have been accused of trying to bypass Congress or heavy-handedly imposing his will or some such nonsense. When negotiations with partner countries were complete or the technology was workable or the money was scraped together for other actions, they were all announced. Even then, look what happened when they did the big rollout of the Root Causes initiative. Harris was deemed the Border Czar and was accused of causing every bad thing that happened at the border. But the White House put out the info for anyone to see, if they cared. Most people didn’t, though, and only cared about “saying her name.” Let me know what you think of the podcast.
wistful doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings! thanks for this perspective. I do agree with you that Democrats were in a damned if they do or don’t situation, and my take is an easy critique from the sidelines. Maybe they did everything the best they could. I just know that even from my perspective, as someone who pays very close attention and even seeks out the information, I somehow missed anything that looked like immigration was a top priority.
Timothy, thank you for your always thought- and hope-provoking solutions.
It cannot be over-emphasized that our last administration actually attempted a bi-bipartisan solution, and it was opposed by this current administration.
Absolutely, without a doubt there was nearly a bipartisan victory and the current administration sabotaged it to keep immigration as a campaign issue. If only that were more obvious to voters in general, who have come to the misconception that Republicans want to solve problems at the border.
"The real shame is our leaders' poverty of imagination." I absolutely love this line. Its so spot on
Love so many of these ideas. These are the solutions needed that are far less costly and way more humane than a worthless wall, paying for profit companies for deportation housing facilities and elaborate ICE drama theatrics.
I didn't even get into the economics of how much money we waste on this current chaotic system, but there you go! Another example of where DOGE could probably do some good, if only their goals were actually making things more efficient and saving money. If only...
The military contractors’ pitch for a “small army of private citizens empowered to make arrests” is utterly unconscionable. I’ll pray that aspect never, ever comes to light.
This is what scared me the most! Imagine who would comprise that small army!
Oh Gabe, it is never a good idea to use MAGA-worshipping Marc Thiessen to try to support your argument regarding the one supposed “success” of Trump’s immigration policies. Thiessen’s alleged “data” was completely cherry-picked and manipulated in a pathetic attempt to prove his point. Let’s just leave aside for now the inconvenient facts that border encounters always drop in the winter, consumer and business sentiment on our economic condition is souring and just generally, people don’t flee repressive, lawless regimes to come to another one. Here are the facts on border encounters in 2024, a year in which they declined dramatically:
Encounters with citizens of Venezuela plunged 99% between December 2023 and August 2024, from 46,918 to 626.
Encounters with citizens of Cuba fell 98%, from 4,964 to 104.
Encounters with citizens of Haiti fell 97%, from 1,392 to 46.
Encounters with citizens of Nicaragua fell 96%, from 8,176 to 297.
Encounters with citizens of Peru fell 95%, from 5,742 to 312.
Encounters with citizens of Ecuador fell 84%, from 16,951 to 2,676.
Encounters with citizens of Colombia fell 80%, from 17,874 to 3,531.
Encounters with citizens of China fell 75%, from 5,951 to 1,472.
And why? Mostly because the pandemic ended and Biden took concrete steps to stem the flow, such as raising the bar for granting asylum requests, increasing the number of legal pathways to enter the country, instituting new technologies to allow migrants to make appointments for pre-approved entry before coming to the border, developing a parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to be pre-vetted and arrive here safely by air, authorizing other means of accessing humanitarian aid as an alternative to just showing up at the southern border, opening Safe Mobility Offices in Columbia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica where people can safely make claims in their home countries without making the dangerous journey here and using public/private partnerships to invest billions in the root causes of migration in the northern triangle countries. All of this was accomplished even though Trump killed the bipartisan immigration bill and without terrifying migrant roundups in schools and churches, plans to round up and deport children, stranding planeloads of migrants in strange countries or using the U.S. military’s personnel and resources for migrant roundups and detentions.
Thanks for this detail. I think violent rhetoric is certainly some kind of a way to decrease immigration, but not the most ethical nor moral way. I’d much prefer a system that works for and with people, not against people.
And despite Sharon working (pretty hard in my opinion) to give voice to people all over the political spectrum in the articles posted here, people will still insist that this is a left-leaning source or "liberal rag." I consistently fail to see how that is remotely true!
Kate, thank you for this information.
People like Trump always use a boogeyman to make fascism seem like a good idea - a group supposedly responsible for all of a country's problems. A scapegoat to make people okay with unconstitutional power grabs. Trump actuallly uses several - immigrants, LGBTQ+, right now it's Federal workers. These actions are never really about saving money, reducing crime, or restoring family values. These are merely excuses to grab more power and enrich certain people.
And once again it bears repeating, the people who need to be kicked out of the country are not the immigrants. If we kicked out all the people working in the White House, we would already be in a much better standing, safety wise, morally and world wide.
No one is suggesting the removal of legal immigrants.
I do not understand the perpetual outrage when the deportation numbers remain essentially unchanged regardless of leadership. On top of that, I see many people questioning the validity of any Trump success. What are we complaining about here?
To make sure I’m understanding what you’re saying- you believe that everyone in the Whitehouse should be kicked out of our country? Do you believe in a one-party system? How would kicking everyone out making us safer, wiser, and in much better standing?
Because then we would have competent, smart, compassionate, non-felon people working in the administration who value democracy, the separation of powers and America’s unique position in the world!
I’m guessing the implication is that this particular administration is not creating the safe, moral environment that would make the country better. I think a lot of people distinguish between a Republican/conservative viewpoint generally versus the MAGA Trump ideology. My guess is that this poster is indicating we’d be better without the MAGA heads, though still welcomes opinions all along the spectrum. At least that’s what I read into it - but I’ll let Krause Kim speak for themself.
You have much more respectful read in to that comment than I believe the original poster has :)
I understand wanting a different administration in the White House. But to wish them kicked out of the country- that is unnecessary and a bit extreme.
Meanwhile, Trump is letting rich people but their way in without showing that they would employ anyone (or, presumably that they're not criminals or loyal to a dictator). Also, while the scare tactics about immigrants centered on the supposed likelihood of them being violent criminals and drug dealers (despite data to the contrary), Trump has pardoned a large scale drug dealer, and not only did he pardon ALL the J6 seditionists, he extended the pardon to separate crimes including domestic violence for the ones that weren't released due to them.
That this man is directing them to focus on immigrant CHILDREN because he wants to up his deportation numbers is horrendous. So much for the claim that it's about getting "violent immigrant criminals" off our streets.
I enjoyed this analysis. I must admit there was a part of me that laughed at one of the reasons their scheme has not been effective (thankfully). They hindered themselves by firing the people who process deportation.
I am skeptical of the border numbers Gabe has cited. For a few reasons:
1. This administration has a TIGHT control of what data is put out. I can’t say I trust it, but I have not seen other data to compare it too.
2. If people are really not crossing the border, do we also seen a reduction in human trafficking? Historically, these tactics may stop border crossings we can see, but then trafficking flourishes.
I will have to wait and see what happens, but I don’t necessarily take the low border numbers as a sign of success. That not to say that “Open Borders” means no trafficking, there was a surge in the last year. However closing borders doesn’t address the root causes of forced migration. It just makes situations harder to track.
Thanks, Gabe, for this article. Very interesting and informative.
Can ANYONE explain why so many republican leaders are staying quiet or worse, reversing course when it comes to Russia? Wicker, Graham, etc all deleted their praise of Zelensky today. I don’t understand why they’re all just letting this happen.