The Fast and the Furious

Send the immigration bill to the House.

By
212
National Guard soldiers stand near a gas heater at Shelby Park on February 3, 2024, in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

Immigration law is famously byzantine, but two things are already clear about the new Senate bill that was released on Sunday.

Many people have strong opinions about it. Practically none of them have read it.

None except the negotiators, that is. Sen. James Lankford, the lead Republican on the compromise, knows the ins and outs. In an interview on Monday, he struggled to understand why his right-wing critics have dubbed it, essentially sight unseen, a momentous “betrayal” whose defeat has suddenly become an important national priority.

Even by the standards of 2024, reaction to the bill in its first 24 hours has been fast and furious. But that was to be expected: Immigration is the issue about which thoughtful policy making is most urgently needed in America, yet also least possible.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
212
By
Comments (212)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jfan

    "Combine that with how much the grassroots right esteems public anger as a measure of political virtue and you can see why Sen. Mike Lee, once thought of as a sober and thoughtful legislator, was incentivized to produce the sort of theatrically outraged tweetstorm on Sunday night that might warrant an excited report in Breitbart."

    Does this remind anyone else of Ted Kennedy's stunt when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court?

    Collapse
  2. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  3. Edward Gijanto

    The republicans should be ashamed. Disgusting. I’ve never been more ashamed of my former party. Maybe I will return once these MAGA freaks go, if they go. This should PROVE to all Americans this man is a fraud, he cares only about his own personal gain. I pray he loses and we can be rid of him forever

    Collapse
  4. Helbock

    Listen to the Advisory Opinions Jan 30 discussion "Why Our Border Is Broken". It is very useful. Our basic problem is the Asylum Problem. It is the root cause problem. Nothing will work if we do not solve this issue. If we solve the asylum problem then how many show up at the border will dwindle in importance, we will be able to turn them away. So go for an asylum solution and forget the numbers issue. If we do not solve the asylum issue then all is lost. The house repubs are, as usual, being ignorant and stupid.
    Listen to David French and Sarah Isgur's Jan 30 podcast !!!!!

    Collapse
  5. Say Hey

    Having read fairly extensive descriptions of the bill, it is fair to say that it accomplishes very little, if anything. It is shot full of exceptions and exemptions - and the President, in his discretion, can suspend substantive provisions. And what's with the 3-year "sunset" provisions? The basic problem remains the same and is unsolved - absurdly false asylum claims - which is intended for those subject to reasonable fear of political or religious persecution. It is not for those who just do not like their native country. The claim that nothing can be done about that is false - on their face, the asylum claims are way off base.

    Collapse
    1. Carol McKenna

      The bill addresses the asylum issue, raising the evidentiary standard for initiating an application, empowering asylum officers to rule on the merits of some applications earlier in the process, and funding over 4,000 new asylum officers and staff so claims can be adjudicated quickly rather than languishing for years as they do now, while applicants become embedded in the U.S.

      Collapse
      1. Say Hey

        This does not address the fundamental issue and in some ways regularizes the problem with a new army of "asylum officers" undoubtedly sympathetic to anyone using the word "asylum" - very expensive window dressing - a classic example of government giving the appearance (at considerable expense) of "doing something" which really does nothing, and given all the other provisions, actually makes it worse.

        Collapse
  6. Brandon Hartley

    Here's a thought: Dems could get "cured" of their open borders attraction after 2024. Polling seems to suggest that blacks and latinos may support Trump in much larger numbers -- its a total fantasy that latino voters (already citizens) are all in favor of waves of illegal immigrants coming through, just because they're fellow spanish speakers. If this destroys the mistaken view held by Dems that "minorities love us and will always vote for us", maybe it could shake up issues sufficiently to push back against the radical open borders mentality.

    I am very pro-immigration, far so than the norm, but the assylum law clearly needs to be changed. It should be "if you break the law to get into the country, your cannot claim assylum - instant deportation." The democrats need to admit and support that change and see where that leaves us. Of course, you need to get past tribal politics and the fear of "giving" a win to your opposition, which *sigh* is the whole damn problem.

    Collapse
  7. Wes.Bridges

    Apropos of nothing, it may be easier and less time consuming for an American citizen to fly to Mexico and swim the river than it is to return to the States through the Atlanta airport. Atlanta is better than Orlando, however.

    Collapse
  8. Wes.Bridges

    Senator Lankford is a bright and serious guy. So is David Frum, whose words continue to ring in my ear:

    “Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders. Without national borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.”

    God help us.

    Collapse
    1. Brandon Hartley

      I'm a huge fan of immigration. But, yep, this is spot on. I can see democrats helping to elect Trump over just this issue. Why they have leapt so far into the pro-immigration camp against the nation's views as a whole is beyond me. Yet another example of the radical, left, "woke" fringe hurting the party.

      Collapse
  9. Brandon Hartley

    I love Catoggio, and I think his pessimism on the lack of "normalcy" in the GOP is dead on. But I couldn't help but chuckle at a little bit of optimism sneaking into his worldview at the end. "They don't get to say that if they kill the bill summarily." Of course they do and will. If Trump is elected, he and his toadies will absolutely stand up and crow that the Democrats killed this compromise. And the voters will absolutely believe him.

    Do republican voters care about pro-life stances? Over the last twenty years, many of us would have said yes, but now they are full-throatedly supporting a candidate that says it's a mistake to pursue any policy earlier than 15 weeks or so. Do republican voters care about deficits? Same thing - there's lots of talk about it, but when Trump wants to pass tax cuts with no funding then that's what will happen. Do republicans care about free trade? Strong muscular policy? Evangelical values? Go down the list.

    Do republican voters care about immigration policy or immigrant crossings? I say no, in the same vein as all these other issues. Maybe some people living in southern Texas actually care and will vote on it, but the majority of the party? Nope, I don't think so. They care in it only so far as they care whether or not it benefits the orange god they worship. Everything else, EVERYTHING, is immaterial. Trump can completely reverse his position, say that white is black, that he never squashed the deal, that any compromise was always a fantasy, that Democrats continue to be solely responsible for any chaos throughout all four years of his future presidency . . . and republican voters will believe it.

    So, yeah, there is no downside to blowing up a compromise that gets you 2/3rds what you want while sacrificing nothing (assuming, of course, that you're a Trump toady who cares nothing for the health of the actual country if it gets in the way of the orange god). You can just claim that white is black a couple of months later and no one in the GOP will care if what you're saying is true or not (the only hope is that enough independants will care, and I'm not certain about even that). But, regarding the GOP, that's where we are -- I await actual evidence that I am wrong.

    Collapse
    1. Edward Gijanto

      Wish you were wrong my friend. But you’re not. Trump could argue for socialism and gun control tomorrow and the party would support it. It truly is the cult of personality

      Collapse
    2. Helbock

      All you say is true and then there is Biden, who is a very strong argument against your conclusions. The radical left is destroying (has destroyed) the Democratic Party.

      Collapse
      1. Brandon Hartley

        I would push back against this, I think. There is, no doubt, a radical left, and I am pretty passionately opposed to it. But I haven't seen evidence that Biden is in thrall to it. His signature legislative accomplishments were fairly mainstream for the left, if too ambitious in scope, but they were a far cry from the trainwrecks suggested by the sanders/warren/AOC wings of the party. His foreign policy has been hawkish if anything, though marred by the debacle of Afghanistan. So I struggle to see how Biden belongs in the "radical left" camp at all. Now, I can't stand him because of the betrayal of afghan interpreters and the slow walking Ukraine aid, and i'd vote for Haley or Desantis in a heartbeat. But he's "radical left"? That just doesn't fit the facts, I don't think.

        Collapse
        1. Helbock

          Yes, I see your point
          HH

          Collapse
    3. Wes.Bridges

      Very cogently argued.

      Collapse
  10. Drsterrett

    "bent on ensuring maximum chaos on Joe Biden’s watch"

    Wait a minute, in his first month in office he signed multiple executive orders undoing the prior administrations actions and we blame the GOP?

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22256267/obama-biden-immigration-policy

    I can't stand Trump and a pretty libertarian on immigration, but Biden owns the chaos.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      J.R.

      If you didn't pick up that he was referencing the reasoning behind not accepting a bill that is a massive improvement over those very Biden policies you're lamenting, then you might want to do a reread.

      Biden's policies made the border worse, but if your answer is to justify Republicans making it even worse than that by refusing to accept Democrat's policy capitulation, then you're arguing for a juvenile and destructive type of politics that will actively and intentionally worsen the issue you're complaining about.

      Collapse
    2. Brandon Hartley

      "I can't stand Trump and am pretty libertarian on immigration, but Biden owns the chaos" is my bumper sticker. I'll still vote for him over Trump, but he's gonna get Trump elected over this.

      Collapse
Load More