So I'm going to respond to the last #SOTU2022 I'll be watching from DC for a while, noting if immigration pops up in any way, shape, or form
It’s surprising how Trump’s Buy American, Hire American executive order served as one of the principal instruments to restrict immigration and showed where the Public Charge rule would go, something I explored in this 2018 @BPC_Bipartisan report bipartisanpolicy.org/report/restric…
This solid piece from @nicolenarea provides an overview of literature on how immigration can help address inflation and fill labor shortages vox.com/platform/amp/b…
Holy shit. Immigration. Important he nodded to Guatemalan and Mexican cooperation on immigration enforcement right at the start. That points to the reality immigration is a regional issue, something I wrote in this @TheBushCenter report with @lvtcollinsbushcenter.org/publications/r…
Also important that Biden nodded to the need for immigration reform. But it's important to note that reform is changing an outdated legal immigration system and the enforcement apparatus; relief is providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented. Both reinforce each other
Also the nod to other countries reinforcing their own borders is interesting since the admin is hosting the Summit of the Americas in June, which will include immigration as an agenda item. We'll se how much of that discussion will focus on immigration enforcement coordination
One difference between the immigration components of tonight's #SOTU speech and last year's is that the emphasis on regional cooperation with countries in LatAM shifted from addressing root causes to more migration control and enforcement h/t @sabrod123
@MHackman rightly notes that the evacuation of Afghan allies didn't appear in any sections of the speech, including the one for immigration. If there was a moment to advocate for a bipartisan push for the Afghan Adjustment Act, it would have been this one
Some quick policy comments on the immigration section in #SOTU. Biden actually laid out a clear vision of what he's going to do with immigration, but you won't catch it if you focus on it from a domestic perspective because it's very much a regional engagement strategy with LatAm
If you look at last year's speech before Congress, you can see that addressing root causes of migration was the major plank for regional engagement. While the administration has continued forward, tonight's speech showed a significant shift towards border externalization
In addition to noting the joint work with Guatemala and Mexico on human smuggling, the speech made it clear the admin is relying on other countries to control migration and receive asylum seekers, a strategy that stretches back at least to the Obama admin with the 2014 UAC crisis
One challenge demanding the admin to end Title 42 is that when it comes to immigration, the "Biden administration" is composed of multiple individuals and teams with diverging views on its immigration goals, stakeholders they prioritize, and the level of power they wield here
After the Trump years where Miller dominated this policy portfolio, this approach is more like the ones we saw in the Obama and Bush years. As a result, there is no "singular voice" among immigration staffers who can make a unilateral decision in response to pressure campaigns
Instead, you're dealing with multiple actors who may or may not have the power - or, frankly, the interest - in ending Title 42 and MPP. And that's something the White House's allies did not prepare for, especially after the initial hiring and policy announcements in January
One angle that merits attention is the way this MPP litigation exasperated existing conflicts between the admin and advocates - and within the admin itself - over the state of the US’ border policies. The litigation clearly aimed to hit the admin on its response to the border
But something I wonder is the extent to which this litigation also aimed to push the admin in a direction where it either lost support from advocacy groups or face a situation where it’s held in contempt of the court if it didn’t sufficiently revive MPP for an antagonistic court
To be clear, I think the admin is likely banking on Mexico to bail it out by rejecting the implementation of MPP - something the Fifth Circuit allowed Mexico to do - instead of making public moves to create its own off ramp. And keeping Title 42 continues to be a major strike
This is why the border and regional migration plans pro-immigration center/center-right groups have released merit attention. They show this political space can produce smart and humane proposals that counter the deterrence-only approach Sargent rightfully lambasts in this piece
Here are a few that are worth reading. I just worked on this @TheBushCenter white paper on smart border policy earlier this year that not only proposes a regional migration management plan, but metrics for assessing its success bushcenter.org/publications/r…
And I also worked on this @BPC_Bipartisan proposal that offered a regional migration management approach that also called for the U.S. government to have the ability to rapidly allocate sources to the border to serve vulnerable populations bipartisanpolicy.org/report/policy-…
So I will comment on one part of Frum’s piece and then link to a few threads of critiques of Zakaria’s that are relevant. Frum contends that the US needs a messaging strategy to deter future arrivals. But as @BPC_TBrown taught me, messaging doesn’t work as a deterrence
What works is developing ways to speed up adjudications with due process protections so the migrant will know whether they can receive asylum or not, a message they send back to their home countries. But that directly cuts against Frum’s opposition to asylum access at the border
And taking that step means developing a meaningful regional migration management plan with regional processing that has these adjudication capacities. It also means creating a modern border infrastructure and immigration court system for adjudications bushcenter.org/publications/r…
One thing that I wonder when reading statements about regional processing of migrants is whether the admin would redo the ACAs but resettle some migrants in legitimately safe third countries like Canada or Costa Rica during larger migration events where it would need help
But my wariness about the ACAs remains the same, namely they could be tools for rapid removals of migrants. And the EU-Turkey deal shows relying on other countries to resettle migrants or stop migrant flows is rarely a long-term solution to these issues bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/the-excep…
If the admin caps the number of migrants resettled through these agreements, that could partially address these concerns. But they'd need mechanisms to prevent future admins from changing the caps to make them the principle regional resettlement tools, reinforcing my wariness