Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less