OPINION:
The politics of immigration in the Trump era dictates that the president’s plan to secure the American border with a wall, restrict family migration to immediate family members and reduce overall legal immigration numbers to 500,000 per year must be decried as draconian, hateful and racist.
But it wasn’t long ago that each and every one of these ideas was endorsed, celebrated and in some cases even voted on by Democrats and establishment Republicans… some of the same people vitriolically attacking Trump today.
It’s been well documented that Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton (along with 77 other senators) voted for comprehensive border protection just ten years ago. It was the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and it effectively still stands as the law of the land. Congress just refuses to appropriate funding for the border protection they supported. Nice trick, right?
But the hypocrisy runs much deeper in The Swamp than just a vote for a border wall politicians never intended to pay for.
How about Trump’s plan to reduce the number of legal immigrants to 500,000 per year from the current level of 1 million? When White House adviser Stephen Miller presented this (specifically a bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. David Perdue (R-GA)) to the White House press corps he had a famous showdown with CNN’s activist/journalist Jim Acosta.
Remember the “cosmopolitan bias” exchange?
The argument Miller presented regarding the levels of legal immigration over the course of history is entirely accurate and critically important in understanding how Acosta and his pals in congress have moved the goal posts on immigration in the Trump era.
“Jim, I appreciate your speech. So let’s talk about this. In 1970, when we let in 300,000 people a year, was that violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty law of the land? In the 1990s, when it was half-a-million a year, was it violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty law of the land?
Tell me what years meet Jim Acosta’s definition of the Statue of Liberty poem law of the land. So you’re saying a million a year is the Statue of Liberty number? 900,000 violates it? 800,000 violates it?”
Indeed, the “Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” law of the land notwithstanding, the Trump plan to reduce legal immigration to around 500,000 per year was the national standard during the Clinton years and it was endorsed by a blue ribbon commission on immigration led by liberal champion Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX)
The US Commission on Immigration Reform recommended limiting legal immigration to 550,00 per year broken down as follows: Nuclear family immigration 400,000; Skill-based immigration 100,000; Refugee resettlement 50,000.
The commission also endorsed vigorous enforcement of immigration laws and robust deportation policies. The report stated “those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”
That’s the kind of statement that Democrats (who revere Rep. Jordan) would boo if Trump said it during his State of the Union address.
In fact, they really did boo one of Jordan’s policies Tuesday evening during his State of the Union address. Here’s what Trump said:
“The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration — under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.”
The Democrats booed. But just two decades ago, Jordan’s immigration commission, celebrated by President Bill Clinton, endorsed this very policy.
Trump went on to say:
Our immigration policy is driven by an overriding preference for family reunification. Unlike every other country, in America family members of existing immigrants account for a large majority of new lawful entrants into our country, crowding out most others. When parents & siblings are given immigration preference, their entry in turn creates an entitlement to other extended family members to gain preference as well—a phenomenon called “chain immigration.”
In terms of cost/benefit analysis, extended family members typically do not produce the economic benefits that work-based immigrants do, and they impose far greater costs.
We propose limiting guaranteed admissions to spouses and minor children of US citizens. Reuniting married couples and their children is the essence of family reunification. By contrast, siblings and parents cause substantial chain immigration because their children, siblings, and parents then receive guaranteed admission preference as well.
Wait… I’m sorry… big mistake there. That wasn’t Trump stating his odious restriction on chain migration during the State of the Union. That was media darling and GOP establishment poster child JEB BUSH who said those exact words.
That was Bush’s policy (loved and adored by Bill Kristol and John McCain) in his 2013 book Immigration Wars. When Mr. “Act of Love” wanted to end chain migration he was celebrated as a serious and cerebral thinker about this all-important issue. When Trump, Cotton and Miller propose the same, they want to tear down Lady Liberty.
Jordan’s commission also endorsed ending the Visa Lottery system and the end of visas for unskilled labor but this space doesn’t really allow for a full dissertation on the double standards employed these days against President Trump and the voters who support him when it comes to immigration.
Suffice to say this: Trump’s proposal on immigration would be embraced if it had been presented by an African-American woman Democrat (we know this because it was) or by a Brooks Brothers Republican with the appropriate political pedigree (ditto).
And that, to borrow a phrase from Sen. Joe Manchin, is why Washington sucks.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.