Great piece by @DLind that serves as both an explainer about the network of policies the Trump admin has adopted to end humanitarian protections along the southern border and a way to ask provocative questions about the future.
Dara divides the Democratic approach into two camps: those who view #immigration as a national security matter who embrace deterrence and those who view is as a humanitarian issue.
I'd suggest a third approach: immigration as a regulatory matter.
Dara observes that prior to the early 2010s, deterrence was an "uncontroversial strategy."
1) That's not entirely true. The US strategy of deterring (and punishing) Guatemalan & Salvadoran asylum seekers in the 1980s birthed the sanctuary movement and loads of litigation.
The same was true of the deterrence-through-interdiction approach the U.S. took to Haitians who set off for the U.S. by boat in the 1990s--not so much for Cubans, of course, who were welcomed with open arms once they set foot on dry land.
2) The period Dara points to--before the early 2010s--when deterrence was "uncontroversial" is also when the vast majority of the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country today arrived.
It wasn't effective even as it was deadly--especially the border fencing strategy.
A sound approach to immigration as a regulatory matter would look at the economic, humanitarian, social, and other factors that affect migration--in the US, regionally, and globally--to design and carry out policies to manage migration effectively.
For instance, in the Western Hemisphere today--as has been true at various times in our past--there are now multiple different refugee crises.
In addition to working regionally to help increase human security, the U.S. could create a refugee admissions program for the region.
Not everyone seeking to come to the U.S. would qualify for refugee protections even if a new administration undid the damage to asylum law by Trump's AGs.
But opportunities could be expanded to get work visas and families could be paroled into the country to wait here.
For years there have been vanishingly few opportunities for anyone in the region to come to the U.S., so pressure began building on the asylum system--both because of the refugee crises genuinely driving people to flee and because it was the only seemingly viable path.
Creating new paths can both relieve pressure on our asylum system and give people who are considering making the journey an opportunity to wait and take a shot at something better, more secure.
The special lottery program for Cuban nationals is a good example of that.
The maximum deterrence approach by the Trump administration--which applies at the border but is paired with global entry bans to effectuate their white nationalist goal of closing off all immigration--is inhumane as well as catastrophic to the country's future.
Designing a more well-regulated immigration system overall could both serve our legal 7 moral obligations to humanitarian protection and achieve the goal of deterring unauthorized entries.
Final thought: the "waterproof fabric" that the Trump administration created to repel migrants was achieve through a comprehensive network of overlapping and nested policies adopted through executive action.
It's been brutally effective.
And it's something we can learn from.
As a future administration looks to set good #immigration policy across the board, it should use every tool in its toolbox and not try to design the perfect policy for each individual situation.
Legal challenges before an increasingly hostile judiciary will be everywhere.
Administrative changes must begin early and be sustained and different approaches can be adopted simultaneously.
The creation of a task force—one that lives in the State Department, *not* DHS—must NOT be seen as a usurpation of the work that’s already taking place.
The USG has unclean hands. No credibility. The job off finding parents cannot be theirs. /2
It’s hard to imagine anything more counterproductive than the idea of sending US law enforcement personnel—especially DHS—into Central American countries to search for parents whose children were years earlier ripped from their arms.
Grateful @kwelkernbc asked Trump first what he would do to reunite all of the families separated due to his policies.
But it's not the US government that can't find the parents of 545 children separated in 2017.
The US government refused to look. It's never looked. /2
Instead, because the US government shirked its responsibility to reunite families, a federal court appointed a steering committee of NGOs--including the @aclu and @JusticeInMotion--to do it.
That's something @JoeBiden can change on Day 1. Take responsibility. Lend a hand.
/3
But immigrants are central to any conversation about Fighting COVID-19, American Families, Race in America, Climate Change, National Security, or Leadership.
On #COVID19, millions of immigrants are working alongside Americans as essential workers to fight the pandemic.
3-in-4 undocumented workers are in jobs defined as essential by DHS itself. #ImmigrantsAreEssential
But despite the great personal sacrifices they have made, undocumented immigrants and their families--including US citizens--have been largely left out of the relief that Congress has passed to date.
Now that we have DHS's official response to the Supreme Court's #DACA decision, a few things are clear. /1 dhs.gov/sites/default/…
The Trump administration remains as fixated as ever on ending DACA AND they remain as terrified as ever at being held responsible for that decision.
The refusal to own the decision to end DACA in 2017 played a big role in the Court's decision to vacate the rescission. /2
With an election on the horizon, Trump's anti-immigrant attacks weighing him down, and control over the Senate turning on states with sizable immigrant and Latinx populations, this memo is designed to distract people from the fact that it promises an end to DACA if Trump wins. /3