Nolan writes:
Trump inherited a number of immigration enforcement problems from the Obama administration, the most serious of which was an immigration court backlog that has prevented him from using removal proceedings to reduce the size of the undocumented alien population.
His solution seems to be to heed the advice of Mitt Romney, who said, when asked about reducing the population of undocumented aliens during a debate in 2012:
“The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.”
But Trump is using harboring prosecutions to discourage people from helping undocumented aliens to remain here illegally in addition to enforcing employer sanctions to discourage employers from giving them jobs.
Neither is likely to be successful.
. . . .
If Trump doesn’t find more promising enforcement measures, historians familiar with Macbeth may say that his “hour upon the stage” just amounted to “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
***********************************
Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete article with much more analysis!
I agree with Nolan that in practical terms of reducing the overall undocumented population, Trump’s strategies are not likely to succeed to a numerically significant extent. But, maybe that’s not the objective.
If the real objective to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering, keep stirring the pot of xenophobia, and rev up a restrictionist base, the policies might make more sense. And, certainly guys like Trump, Sessions, & Neilsen never take any responsibility for their own failures — they just shift the blame to others and use that as a bogus justification for seeking (or demanding) unneeded, draconian changes in the law.
PWS
05-21-18
Paul’s comments illustrate the self-defeating strategy that has made it impossible for the Republicans to work with the Democrats on immigration reform legislation since IRCA was passed more than 30 years ago.
My article makes a strong case for the proposition that Trump’s enforcement program is going to be a dismal failure, and Paul agrees with me.
Trump has to work with the Democrats on immigration reform legislation if he wants to avoid the fate I predict in my article, that historians will say, that his “hour upon the stage” just amounted to “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” And I am certain that he doesn’t want that to be the legacy of his presidency.
But instead of encouraging his fellow immigrant advocates to take advantage of this opportunity, Paul makes an ad hominem attack on Trump and his administration, saying that their real objective to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering, keep stirring the pot of xenophobia, and rev up a restrictionist base.
And as if that wasn’t enough, he goes on to say that guys like Trump, Sessions, & Neilsen never take any responsibility for their own failures — they just shift the blame to others and use that as a bogus justification for seeking (or demanding) unneeded, draconian changes in the law.
And sadly, the ad hominem attacks and demonizations didn’t start with Trump. That has been the approach the Democrats have been using for as long as I can remember.
I suspect that the Democratic congressmen are doing this because they think their political fate depends on keeping the immigrant community in fear of the republicans, claiming that the immigrant community’s only hope is a Democratic Congress and a Dem in the White House. But I have no idea why Paul is doing it.
FYI, the Democrats had a strong majority in the House, a strong enough majority in the Senate to break a filibuster, and Obama in the White House. Yet they didn’t pass a Dream Act or any other significant immigration legislation during that period.
Then, not long after the Dems lose the power to pass any immigration bill they want, Obama announces that because Congress hadn’t acted, he was forced to use his discretion as the president to create DACA and rig enforcement measures to make undocumented aliens in the interior of the US safe from deportation unless they committed a serious crime here.
And they say Trump is a lier.
Gee wiz, Nolan, how is truth an “ad homenim attack?” I certainly did’t come up with this Administration’s White Nationalist agenda. And, I have little doubt that the DACA program was legal, since it was based, in part, on a memo and principles I enunciated for Sam Bernsen back in the Ford Administration.
I think that the record shows that since retiring I have been critical of the Obama Administration’s immigration policies. Undoubtedly, they could and should have resolved both the Dreamer and the Article I issues while they could have, as you suggest. We’re all paying the price for their incompetence.
I’ve had no particular problem working with and for GOP Administrations prior to Bush II. I’ve even been a spokesperson and defender of policies of the Ford and Reagan Administrations. I actually know the difference between conservative policies and White Nationalist/racist policies. Trump and his followers made it all about race and White Nationalism. I’m just stating the obvious.
I’m, of course, not a player in immigration legislation any more. But, I see no problem in Dems reaching agreement with the GOP on sensible reforms that 1) don’t diminish Due Process; and 2) leave the restrictionist program out of it. A “Dreamers for Wall” deal would have done just that. Trump could have had it. But, he was more interested in playing to a restrictionist base.
Why doesn’t the GOP ditch the restrictionist agenda and work with the Dems on reforms that make sense for the country: status for Dreamers; Immigration Court reform; legal status for TPSers who are integrated into our society; more legal temporary workers; management and technology improvements at DHS; alternatives to detention; investor program reforms; e-verify? Seems like those would be “win-win” for everyone except extreme restrictionists, who are only a minority of the populace.
PWS
05-23-18
Paul says, “Gee wiz, Nolan, how is truth an “ad homenim attack?” I certainly did’t come up with this Administration’s White Nationalist agenda. And, I have little doubt that the DACA program was legal, since it was based, in part, on a memo and principles I enunciated for Sam Bernsen back in the Ford Administration.”
It’s ad hominem because you are calling them “white supremacists” and other derogatory names instead of addressing their policies. It is especially blatant in this situation because my article was about why Trump’s policies won’t work, not whether they are good or bad. And your comments were to my article.
That’s the difference between us. When it comes to immigration reform, I put aside what is good or bad, right or wrong. Political negotiations don’t work that way. I try to find ways to meet the essential political needs of both sides. That’s the path to successful immigration reform, not lectures about why the dems are right and the republicans are wrong.
If the dems had accepted Trump’s DACA offer, 1.8 million DACA participants could have gotten LPR status and been on their way to becoming citizens. But the Dems wouldn’t accept his offer. Let’s suppose they were right and Trump was wrong, how does that help the 1.8 million DACA participants who lost that opportunity?
Paul says, “I think that the record shows that since retiring I have been critical of the Obama Administration’s immigration policies. Undoubtedly, they could and should have resolved both the Dreamer and the Article I issues while they could have, as you suggest. We’re all paying the price for their incompetence.”
But it wasn’t just Obama and his administration. The democratic congressmen who had absolute control over legislation for two years could have passed immigration reform measures and chose not to do it. Incompetence? I don’t think so, and I doubt that you do either. They didn’t want to do it, just as they didn’t want to cut a DACA deal with Trump going into an election year.
Trump was the only real friend the DACA participants had when the Dems turned their noses up in disgust over the deal he was offering.
Paul says, “I’ve had no particular problem working with and for GOP Administrations prior to Bush II. I’ve even been a spokesperson and defender of policies of the Ford and Reagan Administrations. I actually know the difference between conservative policies and White Nationalist/racist policies. Trump and his followers made it all about race and White Nationalism. I’m just stating the obvious.”
It doesn’t matter whether Trump and his follows are the terrible people you keep saying they are. The bottom line is that you are hurting millions of undocumented aliens by calling them names instead of encouraging the democratic congressmen to find a way to work with them.
It’s very sad. Trump and the rest of the republicans have their backs against the wall on enforcement. The Dems may never have a better be in a stronger position to cut a deal, but they insist instead on name calling and avoiding anything that might hurt them in the upcoming elections.
Paul says, “I’m, of course, not a player in immigration legislation any more. But, I see no problem in Dems reaching agreement with the GOP on sensible reforms that 1) don’t diminish Due Process; and 2) leave the restrictionist program out of it. A “Dreamers for Wall” deal would have done just that. Trump could have had it. But, he was more interested in playing to a restrictionist base.”
But you are a player. What you say influences people. Instead of encouraging the Dems to find a way to satisfy the essential political needs of both sides, you announce that you see no problem in Dems reaching agreement with the GOP on SENSIBLE REFORMS and you declare what that would mean.
And the trade Trump offered was not relief for the DACA participants in return for a wall. He had other conditions too. He wasn’t just negotiating with he democrats. He had to cut a deal that would satisfy the political needs of his side too.
And you state that Trump was playing to his base as if you are revealing a terrible sin. All politicians play to their constituents. No exceptions. Ever. Among the ones who are re-elected anyway.
Paul says, “Why doesn’t the GOP ditch the restrictionist agenda and work with the Dems on reforms that make sense for the country: status for Dreamers; Immigration Court reform; legal status for TPSers who are integrated into our society; more legal temporary workers; management and technology improvements at DHS; alternatives to detention; investor program reforms; e-verify? Seems like those would be “win-win” for everyone except extreme restrictionists, who are only a minority of the populace.”
And you end with more demands.
The next time you want something from your wife or one of your kids, see if your approach to immigration reform works on them. Call them derogatory names. Tell them how bad you think they are. And finish with a list of demands.