Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When immigration becomes the most important issue in America

President Biden

President Joe Biden clearly feels like he has no other choice but to negotiate on immigration policy, writes Schnur.

Andrew Thomas/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Schur is a professor at the University of California – Berkeley, Pepperdine University and the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses in politics, communications and leadership.

Late last year, I wrote about the growing pressure on the Biden administration from Democratic elected officials to do more to address the growing influx of undocumented migrants into the country. These Democrats warned both of the real-world impact of the large numbers of arrivals in their cities and states and of the political consequences of continued inaction. They began to put heavy pressure on the White House, demanding more aggressive border security measures than their party has historically supported.

Last month, Joe Biden joined them. Not only did Biden embrace the most far-reaching border and deportation measures offered to date, but he also ratcheted up his language to unprecedented levels, pledging to “shut down” the southern border and calling for “the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country.”


“It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed,” he said. “And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

At the same time that Biden worked to find common ground with Republicans, the progressives in his own party became increasingly enraged as they watched a president who they had helped elect four years ago now embrace the type of immigration package that no previous Democrat had ever been willing to touch. The substantive policy concessions that the White House had offered were highly upsetting to them, but listening to Biden use such highly charged language was even worse.

But Biden clearly feels like he has no other choice. Since linking immigration-related issues to legislation regarding U.S. support for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, the president has been forced to accept onerous GOP border proposals to keep his international aid package alive. Meanwhile, the worsening crisis at the border has increased pressure on him to do something to defuse immigration as a political weapon for his opponents to use against him.

Over the last several months, Biden has gradually moved further and further toward traditionally conservative policy solutions, and further and further away from his party's — and his own — history on this issue. Each time the president shifted rightward, Republicans asked for more. GOP leaders are now hinting that there is no immigration policy that they will find acceptable — no matter how restrictive — and would rather wait for the possibility of a Donald Trump victory that would allow them to pass an even more hard-line measure. As the president began to see the growing likelihood that no compromise would be possible and that he would likely face the voters this fall without a significant immigration-related achievement in hand, he decided that stronger rhetorical weaponry would be his next best alternative.

But if this is the type of language that Biden is using in January, imagine what he is going to sound like by October, especially if the race ends up being as closely fought as expected. He has long since abandoned any of the reforms that have been used in the past to balance out stricter border security. There are no guest worker programs of the type that business leaders want, let alone any of the previous proposals for broader legalization and citizenship opportunities for new arrivals. This has been a one-sided discussion from the beginning, and, like any effective negotiators, Republicans keep asking for more.

Biden cannot win this election on immigration. His best possible outcome is to mitigate the damage and turn the conversation to abortion rights and other issues that work in his favor. But Americans are now telling pollsters that immigration is the policy debate of greatest import to them, and with neither a legislative compromise nor a real-world border solution in the offing, Biden does not have much to offer.

The president and his allies are now working to convince voters that it is the Republicans who are the obstacles to a more secure border, arguing that the GOP would rather have a talking point that can damage Biden on the campaign trail than a substantive solution that could actually stem the migrant flow. Those types of inside baseball messages about political strategy are usually harder to sell. But it might be Biden’s best shot.

This article was originally published in AllSides. Ready the original version here.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less