Crisis at the border a no-win scenario for Biden

A U.S. Border Patrol agent instructs asylum-seeking migrants as they line up along the border wall after crossing the Rio Grande river into the United States from Mexico on a raft, in Penitas, Texas, U.S., March 17, 2021.

As thousands of migrants, many of them children, attempt to cross the US southern border, stretching the immigration system's ability to process and integrate them, President Joe Biden now finds himself facing a challenge that has bedeviled presidents and Congress for decades: how to reform an immigration system that everyone agrees is broken, but which no one can agree on how to fix.


The problem is, in principle, straightforward: On the one hand, most Americans recognize the need to control immigration into the world's most prosperous country. But on the other, the US has a long border that is difficult to secure, many businesses that are eager to hire undocumented workers, and millions of people living in countries to the south who see the perilous trek north as their only way out of a life of poverty and violence. As a result, for decades the US' two major political parties have decried the treatment and processing of illegal immigrants, while the increasingly dysfunctional legal immigration system serves the needs of no one.

The issue has become a true third rail of American politics, inflaming partisan passions like almost no other. As the share of Americans who are foreign born returned to historic highs after a decline in the 1970s and 1980s, concerns about immigrants putting downward pressure on American wages and accelerating a rapid pace of cultural change primed a generation of voters to be receptive to a message of shutting down the border. Recent polling from Pew found that 68 percent of Americans believe it is important to increase security along the US-Mexico border, though that number rose to 91 percent among Republicans (versus 49 percent of Democrats). It also found that 83 percent of Republicans supported increased deportations (31 percent for Democrats), while just 48 percent of Republicans supported establishing a path to legal residence for illegal aliens (compared to 82 percent of Democrats). Tapping into this backlash was, of course, critical to Donald Trump's success in 2016 and his continued appeal among GOP voters.

The Democrats, meanwhile, generally support more immigration on humanitarian grounds and because they see Hispanic voters as a key part of their coalition. Unions, another important Democratic constituency, welcome new low-wage workers as potential future members.

And so where Republicans put a focus more on border enforcement and, in the pre-Trump era, meeting labor shortages, Democrats emphasize broader pathways to legal entry and permanent citizenship. The two sides cannot agree on how to make it all work together.

The current crisis at the border has sent both sides to their familiar partisan corners. Republicans, and even some moderate Democrats, say the recent increase in asylum seekers is due to Biden's promises of looser immigration policies. This narrative is supported by press reports of Mexican officials and migrants who say that Biden's message of more humane treatment for migrants is one reason they set out for the US.

Meanwhile, the large number of children seeking asylum has stretched the capacity of the system to quickly process them, resulting in unaccompanied minors being housed in immigration centers that Democrats decried during the Trump administration, prompting calls from Democratic lawmakers to quickly expand processing capacity.

With Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, isn't this an opportunity for them to pass the reform they want? Not really. The issue is too toxic and there are divisions within the Democratic party itself — progressives who want to ease the admission of migrants and some moderates whose position is closer to that of the GOP.

Democrats in the House last week in fact declined to take up a comprehensive immigration solution, agreeing only on narrower legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for residents who were brought to the US illegally as children (the so-called Dreamers) and farm workers. Both of these bills attracted bipartisan support in the House but they are unlikely to find a 60-vote supermajority needed for passage in the Senate, where even Republicans like Texas's John Cornyn or South Carolina's Lindsay Graham who favor a path to citizenship for Dreamers will condition their support for the bill on including other things, such as increased border security or a nationwide, mandatory use of electronic verification of citizenship for new hires. Neither of these policies are acceptable to enough Democrats to forge a compromise solution.

So Biden's hands are tied. As he takes executive action to accelerate the housing and processing of the surge in juvenile migrants, he will probably encourage more of them to come, fueling Republican criticism that he supports open borders — a message that the GOP would love to take into the midterm elections next year. But if Biden instead takes the path of former president Barack Obama and increases deportations to discourage migration, he will come under attack from progressives in his own party who will accuse him of turning his back on a pressing human rights issue.

In this context, the White House appears to be hoping that it can outsource some of the enforcement to Mexican authorities. But with larger numbers of desperate people arriving daily, little light at the end of the legislative tunnel, and midterms looming next year, this could shape up to be a defining crisis for Biden.

Jon Lieber is managing director of Eurasia Group's United States Practice and host of GZERO's US Politics In 60 Seconds.

Advancing global money movement for everyone, everywhere

https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackimp/N6024.4218512GZEROMEDIA/B26379324.311531246;dc_trk_aid=504469522;dc_trk_cid=156468981;ord=[timestamp];dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;gdpr=${GDPR};gdpr_consent=${GDPR_CONSENT_755};ltd=?

Even with innovations in fintech and digital payments, roadblocks related to basic infrastructure like electricity and internet connectivity still prevent many migrant workers from being able to transfer money to their families back home with a truly digital end-to-end flow. While more workers can send money digitally today, the majority of people still receive funds in cash. Read more about why public-private partnerships are key to advancing the future of global money movement and why it matters from experts at the Visa Economic Empowerment Institute.

The European Union is, for better or worse, the most ambitious experiment in human history in institutionalized multinational cooperation. Its success depends on the willingness of its members to abide by its rules.

In recent years, the populist-nationalist governments of former Communist bloc members Hungary and Poland have flouted some of those rules in order to boost their own popularity with citizens suspicious of the EU's liberal values on issues like immigration and minority rights. In response, the EU has scolded these "illiberal" governments and threatened forceful action – so far without much effect.

The fight between EU institutions and Poland and Hungary has escalated.

More Show less

Ian Bremmer is joined on GZERO World by artificial intelligence scientists Kai-fu Lee, who recently wrote about how AI will change the world over the next two decades, precisely to talk about AI's future. After this week's Facebook debacle, how can we align interest to regulate AI-driven algorithms? Will AI steal all our jobs? And what should we do to learn from AI to improve our lives before it gets smarter than us?

Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Is a robot coming for your job? Kai-fu Lee explains AI

US elections officials have always persuaded losing candidates that they've, ahem, lost. Now it's worse because there's a new paradigm, according to former DHS and Election Assistance Commission official Matt Masterson, policy fellow with the Stanford Internet Observatory. Candidates that won't accept defeat regardless of the margin or evidence of fraud, he says, are undermining trust in the system — and election officials are ill-equipped to deal with this problem.

Matt Masterson made these remarks during a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Who's most responsible for spreading misinformation online? For Ginny Badanes, senior director for Democracy Forward at Microsoft, the problem starts with those who create it, yet ultimately governments, companies and individuals all share the burden. And she's more interested in what we can do to respond.

Ginny Badanes spoke at a live Global Stage event, Infodemic: defending democracy from disinformation. Watch the full event here: https://www.gzeromedia.com/global-stage/virtual-events/disinformation-is-a-big-problem-what-can-we-do-about-it

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. In this video, watch Ian Bremmer's conversation with Lebanese journalist and author Kim Ghattas on GZW talking about the future of Lebanese politics and sectarianism in the county after the after the blast. It was originally published on August 19, 2020.

In Lebanon, "a majority (are) united in wanting a different future, a future that is non-sectarian, that is non-corrupt, that provides prosperity, justice, dignity for people," journalist Kim Ghattas told Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.

In this interview, Ghattas discusses the opportunity that could arise from the tragedy of the Beirut explosion which killed 200 and injured thousands more. The Lebanese are "fed up" with the militant group Hezbollah, she tells Bremmer, and want to strive for a government that better resembles the diversity and cosmopolitan nature of its citizens.

Watch the GZERO World episode: Lebanon Post-Blast: Rage in the Streets of Beirut.

Some of the worst sectarian clashes since Lebanon's 15-year civil war (1975-1990) broke out in Beirut this week between supporters of Hezbollah and Amal, both Shiite political parties, and Christian, far-right Lebanese Forces. Shiite protesters were rallying against the state probe into the Beirut port blast, which occurred last year. They say authorities were singling out Shiite politicians for questioning and blame. Below is our original piece on the Beirut port explosions published on August 5, 2020.


The twin explosions at Beirut's port on Tuesday were so powerful that the aftershocks reverberated as far as the Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, 150 miles away. The specter of fire and smoke was such that many suggested on social media that Beirut had experienced a nuclear blast.

In the days ahead, more details will come to light about why a deadly cache of materials was haphazardly stashed at a port warehouse, and why Lebanon's government failed to secure the site. So, what comes next for crisis-ridden Lebanon?

More Show less

Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, shares insights on US politics:

What does it actually mean to cut $1 trillion from the Democrats' $3.5 trillion social spending bill?

President Biden has proposed one of the most ambitious expansions of federal spending in recent memory. If he gets everything he wants, it would probably be the largest expansion of government since the Great Society, but he's not going to get everything he wants. Democrats have basically said they cannot do all $3.5 trillion in spending. They're probably going to end up around $2 trillion. So what gets cut? Well, we don't know yet. There's kind of two ways to go about this. They could either cut the number of programs that have been proposed, doing fewer things with more money on a permanent basis, or they could try to do more things, each program getting less money and potentially doing them on a temporary basis. So, a future Congress would have to extend it. What does this mean for you? Well, a lot of the money in here is designed to go directly to families, either in the form of cash payments, through the tax code, the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, or subsidies for things like child care, early childhood education, and community college. And if you cut these things back, it means less money is going to go out the door to the American people. It also means less tax increases to finance it. So the implications of what's being proposed could actually end up being a big deal for a lot of Americans who would qualify for benefits under these new programs.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal