Eventually, we're going to have to figure out immigration

Swiped from wbur.org

President Trump made his first-ever speech to the nation from the Oval Office last night, trying to justify why the need for a 1000-foot-long wall across our border with Mexico is so excruciating that it is worth a government shutdown to force Congress to accede. With a robotic delivery and flagrantly misleading "information," he probably didn't convince anyone, but he might have managed to reassure the true believers he's still with them. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer were barely more energized as they tried to convey their party's stance as rooted in common sense and fairness, albeit with very little in the way of detail.

I was missing a lively, young, technically-literate Democrat who could, with a few props, explain how electronic surveillance worked better to solve all of the problems attendant to illegal immigration. That would have provided a contrast to our President in so many ways. But, alas, that didn't happen in this universe. And where is the vision? Where is the equivalent of Martin Luther King's 1963 dream of interracial community?

President Trump's immigration policy is so awful almost any alternative would be better, rather like every direction is south when you're at the North Pole. (The same could be said for his environmental policy.) Listening to wall advocates, you immediately wonder if they understand how the 21st century actually works, or if this is all about symbolic expression of--what? Hatred of Mexicans? Leaving one's mark in a sort-of permanent way? Add in the gratuitously cruel handling of refugees, including what amounted to kidnapping their children, and the utter unpreparedness of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for implementing any of these policies, and you're left with the conclusion that the entire policy is fueled by malice. Ignorance, malice, and lack of resources--no wonder Pelosi and Schumer felt confident in asserting they could do it better.

Eventually, though, we're going to have to get specific. We're actually at a rather quiet phase of the immigration cycle, or would be were it not for President Trump's knack for creating chaos out of order. Overall immigration levels have recovered from the financial crisis era, but remain below long-term averages. The best estimates of undocumented persons as well as undocumented workers in the United States have them at their lowest levels in over a decade. Moreover, a sizable proportion of both groups have been in the U.S. more than 10 years; fewer are newly-arrived (Krogstad, Passel and Cohn 2018; for data on Mexican border apprehensions, see Ramon 2018). It's surely possible to imagine both economic and political pressures getting more intense. Nicholas Kristof calls 2018 "the best year in human history" because of worldwide progress against poverty, lack of access to education and premature death. May that progress continue! but if there are reversals that will increase the number of people in developing nations willing to take the risks involved in getting to America. And what of refugees, who the President has denigrated and horribly mistreated? As climate change accelerates, and basic resources become scarce in more places, the resulting instability and violence will produce refugee flows that will make those of the last few years seem like a Sunday in the park. Are we ready for that?

Immigration is one way to counteract a declinig birth rate. Or not
(Source: Frey 2018. Used without permission)

I don't think we are ready at all, other than majorities of Americans disapprove of Trump's approach. We need a coherent, predictable immigration policy that takes account of all legitimate interests in the policy debate. That means admitting all those needed for labor supply, as well as providing an avenue for refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution. It should provide security against dangerous people, drugs &c. but also to regulate the entry of immigrants--and not just those entering across one particular physical border--to some nationally-agreed upon level. It should provide clear, manageable paths to permanent and temporary residence. It should take account of those who have been in the country so long they have become part of the national fabric, such that chasing them out would do more harm than good. The resources necessary for enforcement, naturalization and managing the flow of temporary workers should not be difficult to get. Whatever the associations with the name, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is a much better name for this operation than the too-narrowly-focused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

It goes without saying that this policy should be thoroughly debated in Congress, for however long it takes, as was the case with the landmark Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1986. It should not result from the President holding the government hostage until he gets what he thinks he wants.

It also goes without saying that opposition to immigration that is racially-based--viz. the President's frequent characterizations of Mexicans and "shithole countries"--should be recognized and called out for the racism it is.

The alternative to immigration laws that relate closely to the realities on the ground is, I suppose, the default option of continuing to muddle through as we have for decades. This policy has evolved in a way that's clearly adaptive to various realities, which means it's working after a fashion, despite its incoherence.  Current policy also distributes its costs unfairly to Border Patrol officers, who put their lives on the line for laws the country isn't committed to, and to undocumented laborers, who are too vulnerable to resist economic exploitation. It also creates space for unscrupulous politicians to exploit racial fears and resentments.

A country that celebrates community in all its diversity needs to have a frank conversation about immigration. For the forseeable future, it's up to Democrats to take the lead on that.

Transcripts of the President's speech and the Democrats' response are here.