“What do you know about war? You never fired a cannon!”
– Les Ebeling
In several previous posts I have nibbled around the immigration issues. This is very complex and of course now is interwoven with the budget making process in Washington. I apologize in advance for the length of my comments. There are lots of valid perspectives here that sometimes conflict with each other. Geez, that sounded like a politician. If you say something about this you KNOW you are going to be criticized – called a racist or a flaming liberal. But what the heck, I am old and don’t have a lot to lose so I am going to tell them how to move this issue forward.
A big part of my work career was spent working as a local government bureaucrat. That automatically casts my opinions into disrepute for many. One of the principals that our best elected local officials subscribed to was to hire good professionals, give them some policy guidance and then let them do their job. I can tell you from repeated first-hand experience, when non-professionals attempt to work at professional tasks, the results are not good. Just ask my kids about how my plumbing worked out.
So, what is my point? Does anyone think that Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer are experts at border security? How would they know if a wall is a good thing? It seems to me that the Democrats position on this is that they are against whatever President Trump wants. And let’s be balanced here – is President Trump an expert on border security? I don’t think so. I think he has just boxed himself into a corner over a campaign promise that he made shooting from the hip as he is prone to do. Or as my brother Les would say – they don’t really know what they are talking about – they are not border security “cannoneers” – not experts. But based on what I know about the Federal government, we have LOTS of professionals who have totally informed and valid opinions on border security. We rarely hear from them and if we do their opinions are usually being bent to support the goals of one of the two warring parties.
When two parties are in dispute experts say that they should try to pull back to a point to where they can agree on SOMETHING. These days in the toxic environment that is our elected federal government that may be pretty far back. But do you think we could start here?
• Our present system is a mess. Oops, too strong – Our present system could be improved.
• Asylum seekers and other potential immigrants are human beings. (Too strong? I don’t think so.) They take the risks that they do because they feel that it is their best or perhaps only chance for survival and a better life. Is this hard to understand? Aren’t we ALL seeking a better life?
• They are not leaving their homelands because they want to. Their first choice would be to achieve that better life where they live.
• Whatever the number of immigrants admitted – Whatever the qualifications that we are going to require of them – Whatever the way we are going to evaluate asylum requests, etc. etc. – we should have facilities, staffing and processes to make certain that we KNOW what we are doing and what is actually going on. And we should handle these processes expeditiously and efficiently. This may cost more than what we are presently spending.
• Border security is a field of expertise just like any other complex undertaking. We would all be well-served to engage professionals to make certain that we don’t spend a lot of money on systems that don’t accomplish the desired outcome.
If we can agree on these basic precepts, here is what we should do:
• The House and the Senate should each appoint no more than 4-6 members to a joint committee. The balance between Democrats and Republicans must be even. Leadership should resist the urge to appoint fire-brands from the left or the right. If the Republican controlled Senate can’t live with not having a greater number of their party appointed from the Senate to the joint committee, then they should agree that the Democratically controlled House would be able to reciprocate in order to preserve the balance.
• The charter for the joint committee is to first devise a proposal for border security that would break the budget impasse. The proposal must be adopted by a majority of the committee members and subsequently sponsored for consideration by their respective Houses of Congress. The joint committee should be staffed by border security experts from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). And these staffers must NOT be political appointees. These need to be the most senior, qualified, non-political people in the Department. The staffers from DHS, without influence from politicians, should prepare proposals for improvements to border security and immigration processes for consideration by the joint committee.
• The Administration should be consulted along the way, but the Administration would NOT have veto power over the work of the joint committee. Of course, the President can veto any bill that comes out of Congress but let’s keep our powder dry for at least a little bit to let this process play out.
• These improvements will be in two areas – “unlawful entry deterrents” – UED’s and “immigration request expeditors” – IRE’s. (You gotta have some acronyms or it’s not really a governmental committee.) The UED’s may or may not include physical elements (like concrete walls, steel slats etc.) They may or may not include electronic or other devices or processes or personnel to better accomplish the tasks. Both sides need to be ready to respectfully consider what the professionals recommend. The aim of the UED’s is for us to gain some control over what is occurring. This does NOT mean the aim is to cut off all immigration or for that matter to allow everyone who wants to come, permission to do so. We can’t work on the issue of how many immigrants we should have until we know that this discussion is not moot because people are bypassing our systems. The aim of the IRE’s is to avoid the chaos that we presently have at our major border crossing locations. Even if the result of the processes is to deny asylum or other immigration, the evaluation process should be swift and efficient. I think we OWE potential immigrants that.
Here are the areas where the joint committee is NOT going to work.
• Status and ultimate handling of “Dreamers” – Don’t try to make this a part of the grand bargain. The bargain will be so grand that it will never be achieved. If they are successful the joint committee could stay in business and make a recommendation on this later.
• Immigration levels. Again DHS, the Commerce Department and the Department of Health and Human services experts should weigh in on this decision. How many new citizens do we need? How many can we realistically assimilate? What tools do we need to assimilate new arrivals?
• What fields of expertise do we need from our new immigrants? (I am not suggesting that we admit only PHD’s – we need ALL kinds of worker/citizens to make our economy and our society work.)
We have responsibilities as the wealthiest country in the world. One of them is to play a part in humanitarian crises wherever they occur. However, these responsibilities do NOT include bringing every distressed person in the world into our country. Rather we must engage policies that will make it MORE LIKELY that as many people as possible in the world have a chance for a better life – WHERE THEY LIVE. This should be a significant part our foreign policy. We have a responsibility to make the world a better place but we can’t realistically do that by admitting every person in the world who would like to live here.
STILL, we need MORE people to fuel our economy than we are raising through the biological growth of our existing citizenry. We need to make OUR economic need one of the parameters in establishing what our immigration quotas should be, of course along with an allowance to admit TRUE VALID asylum seekers. This may seem too crass and mercenary to some. My point is that there is a limit to the rate at which we can assimilate new people into our society. That rate is clearly higher than the rabid anti-immigration advocates would say, but also is clearly lower than the rate that results from simply admitting everyone who arrives at our border or even that is able to bypass our system entering illegally. As Thomas Freidman says, we need high barriers and wide gates.
Of course, a concept like this is FAR too simplistic. I am NOT a seasoned politician and probably can’t understand. Both warring factions will have reasons it won’t work.
• The Democrats can’t bear to see this brash, abrasive President get his way. They fear they might alienate their far-left base. President Trump IS brash and abrasive. He DOES play fast and loose with the truth. I am not defending most of his behaviors. But that doesn’t mean he can’t have an idea that is good for the country. Don’t throw away a good idea just because it comes from him. We expect you to be FOR US not AGAINST HIM. Those are NOT automatically mutually exclusive.
• Republicans fear being seen as weak and of losing support from their far-right base. Many privately fear what the President sometimes advocates but fear being ostracized by him more. Your first responsibility is to US. If you see an idea that is in our best interest that he opposes, your first responsibility is to your constituents, NOT to your party and NOT to the President.
This situation is only going to get worse the longer it goes. We are already seeing the toll in personal lives AND in the national and the world economy. Senators – don’t waste time waiting for the President to work something out with the House Democrats. Aren’t you duly elected to fulfil YOUR purpose under the Constitution? House Members – don’t waste time adopting bills that won’t ever make it though the Senate to even get vetoed by the President. This reminds me of the last Republican House passing umpteen Obamacare repeal bills knowing that they would not get through the Senate. And ALL OF YOU, cut the CRAP! I am sick and tired of your rhetoric – it’s nothing more than propaganda. Yours is a difficult job, I realize that, but you need to GET TO WORK.