Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

When immigration becomes the most important issue in America

Opinion

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.”

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

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less