The migrant ‘surge’ at the U.S. southern border is actually a predictable pattern.

dpa/Picture Alliance/Getty Images

Data from Customs and Border Protection suggests the apparent surge in migrants at the border is the result of a routine seasonal trend and pent-up demand in the pandemic. [Washington Post / Tom K. Wong, Gabriel De Roche, and Jesus Rojas Venzor] A picture of the situation at the border became more clear over the weekend, when a report showed that the administration currently has 15,500 unaccompanied minors in custody at emergency shelters and facilities, some of which have been compared to jails. They stay for an average of five days. [Vox / Anya van Wagtendok] The border struggles are being compounded by coronavirus health concerns. Officials at the Carrizo Springs Influx Care Facility in Texas, for example, said there have been 108 positive tests among the 766 children at the facility. [NBC News / Lauren Egan, Gabe Gutierrez, and Dareh Gregorian] As political pressure mounts on President Joe Biden to manage the influx of migrants arriving at the southern border, he has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to manage a portfolio of immigration-related issues. [CNN / Kevin Liptak and Jasmine Wright] As the new immigration point person, Harris is stepping into a politically fraught issue in which major legislation has been elusive in recent years. The role will be a foreign policy one, in which she will be tasked with addressing the root causes of migration in Central America and working with leaders in Mexico and Northern Triangle countries to address the surge. [Politico / Eugene Daniels] Republicans are already seeking to punish Biden and Harris on this issue, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy leading a caucus trip to the border to declare the border influx to have been created by Biden’s positive messaging on immigration. [Intelligencer / Matt Stieb] Meanwhile, a group of bipartisan senators discussed immigration at a weekly lunch — a rare, if potentially futile, attempt to build consensus. Because an immigration bill would not be budget-related and would need to clear the 60-vote filibuster hurdle, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) said any immigration deal would have to go through the bipartisan group. [Washington Post / Paul Kane] Another bipartisan group convened by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) gathered specifically to talk immigration yesterday — though expectations are decidedly low. A comprehensive immigration bill “is never going to work,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, but smaller items like asylum reform have better chances. [Politico / Sabrina Rodriguez, Burgess Everett, and Marianne Levine] But even bills that used to have bipartisan support have been swept aside by Republicans in favor of using the border surge as a political punching bag. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), for example, co-sponsored a bill this year offering legal status to Dreamers. He now says due to the border situation, he would not even vote for it. [The Los Angeles Times / Sarah D. Wire]

Obama To Set Off Immigration Bomb In Middle of Midterms?

GREG SARGENT, WASHINGTON POST

 ...Just how far can [Obama] go unilaterally, particularly when it comes to easing the pace of deportations. This is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency in substantive, moral, and legal terms, and politically, it could set off a bomb this fall, in the middle of the midterm elections.
I’m told there are currently internal discussions underway among Democrats over whether ambitious action by Obama could be politically harmful in tough races. According to two sources familiar with internal discussions, some top Dems have wondered aloud whether Obama going big would further inflame the GOP base, with little payoff for Dems in red states where Latinos might not be a key factor. I don’t want to overstate this: These are merely discussions, not necessarily worries.

Indeed, some Dems are making the opposite case, and that argument is described well in a new Politico piece. The story notes that Obama has privately told immigration advocates demanding ambitious action that they might not get what they want, telling them: “We need to right-size expectations.” And yet, according to Politico, some advocates still hope for aggressive action and believe Dems see it as in their own political interests:

Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: The people who will be opposed to reform or to the president taking action on his own are already likely prime Republican base voters. But voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.
In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority — Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas — immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.

One place where this is plainly true is Colorado.

 Beyond this, though, my sense of internal discussions currently underway is that no one is really sure how the politics of this will play out. Indeed, to hear one source familiar with those discussions tell it, Dems mostly see this as guesswork, since we’re in largely uncharted political territory here: Yes, Americans support immigration reform and a sensible path to legalization, but no one knows how the public will greet unilateral action to bring about temporary relief from deportation, at least for some.

Indeed, this is probably a a six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other situation: While aggressive action will provide fodder for Republicans to drive their base into a frenzy with #ObummerTyranny talk, it could also bait Republicans into overreach that alienates swing voters and motivates the Dem base in a year when the midterm dropoff problem is putting control of the Senate in peril.

And that is one reason why, in the end, Obama must make this decision based on what he truly believes the legal constraints on unilateral action are, rather than letting it be dictated by a sense of the political constraints here. Some advocates believe the White House will allow an overly cautious sense of the political constraints to hamstring him beyond what the lawyers actually think is within his authority. Yet others believe that ultimately the decision will be driven by a genuine evaluation of what is legally possible. We’ll find out soon enough, but let’s hope it’s the latter.

President Obama called the influx of Central Americans trying to cross the border into Texas “an urgent humanitarian situation.” Credit Eric Gay/Associated Press        

* REPUBLICANS SAY NO TO OBAMA ON BORDER CRISIS: The Post reports that multiple Republicans are expressing “skepticism” about the White House request for $3.7 billion in funding to expedite removals of minors crossing the border and to provide them more care. Some are demanding a more detailed plan to stanch the crisis, and others claim Obama must secure the entire border before acting on the short term crisis (which, as always, means they want the DREAMers deported).

Now, the question of whether the legal process needs to be changed in some formal way is a legitimate one. But it’s still unclear why, in the short term, Republicans who themselves say they want minors removed more rapidly would say No to funding that would help accomplish that goal.

* SOME REPUBLICANS WANT TRAFFICKING LAW REPEALED: Here’s something to keep an eye on. Some Republicans are calling for doing away with the 2008 trafficking law that mandates legal protections for arriving minors, which is a cause of the crisis. John McCain is calling for repeal, arguing: “The message has to be, ‘If you cross our border illegally, you will be returned immediately.’”
Senator Lindsey Graham is also calling for a similar step. The Obama administration, too, has expressed support for changing the law so children from Guatemala and Honduras can be removed as quickly as Mexicans. So it will be interesting to see if Congress is actually up to the task of legislating constructively.

* CAN OBAMA EXPEDITE REMOVALS BUT KEEP IT HUMANE? Julia Preston reports that the administration is implementing a major change in how immigration courts operate, to speed removals by moving undocumented minors and their parents to the front of the line:

Under the new procedures, those migrants could have their cases resolved and be deported within months…Judges now have only one priority for scheduling hearings: They take cases first of immigrants who are in detention. Under the new policy, unaccompanied minors and families in deportation proceedings — even those who have been released from detention — will also be priorities for judges. 

The question is whether speeding up the process risks undermining legal protections for children who qualify for genuine relief for humanitarian reasons. Says one official: “We are not changing legal standards. We are going to do these cases fast but we will do them right.” We’ll see.

WHY REPUBLICANS WON’T SUPPORT OBAMA BORDER FIX: Kevin Drum, commenting on opposition to Obama’s request for funds to expedite removals (which is coming from Republicans who want expedited removals), spells out the real motive here as clearly as you could want:

Well, of course it won’t happen. The crisis along the border is tailor made for Republicans. It makes their base hopping mad, it juices their campaign fundraising, and anytime the government is unable to address a problem it makes Obama look bad. Why on earth would Republicans want to do anything to change any of this? As long as Obama is president, chaos is good for Republicans. After all, most voters don’t really know who’s at fault when things go wrong, they just know there’s a crisis and Obama doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that on immigration, Republicans are benefiting from the fact that media outlets simply refuse to describe their actual positions accurately.