Podcast Summary
Understanding the Policy Records of Joe Biden and Donald Trump on Immigration: The With Pod 2024 The Stakes series by Chris Hayes aims to provide an analytical and descriptive analysis of Joe Biden and Donald Trump's records on immigration to help voters make informed decisions.
During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump bring unique perspectives based on their previous time in office. Chris Hayes, host of the Why Is This Happening Podcast, is launching a special series called With Pod 2024 The Stakes, where they will delve into the policy records of each candidate. In the first episode, they discussed immigration with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director at the American Immigration Council. When Biden took office, the immigration system was in crisis. Now, the situation has improved but isn't fully operational yet. Trump's immigration policies were controversial and often focused on border security. The series aims to provide an analytical and descriptive analysis of each candidate's records, rather than being polemical. The goal is to help voters make informed decisions by understanding the differences in policy areas like immigration.
Trump administration's immigration policy: Restricting legal immigration and reshaping the system with racial and income-based quotas: The Trump administration sought to limit immigration, favoring Europeans and wealthy individuals, and decrease family reunification, resembling the overtly racist 1920s-1960s system.
The Trump administration's immigration policy focused on restricting legal immigration and reshaping the system to resemble the early 20th century model with racial and income-based quotas. This administration aimed to limit the number of immigrants, favoring those from Europe and wealthy countries, and reduce family reunification. The 1920s to 1960s immigration system, which established these quotas, was overtly racist, as acknowledged by key figures like Jeff Sessions. However, even the 1965 act, which introduced a family-based immigration system, was also influenced by racial beliefs, as it was assumed that most immigrants would be white. Ultimately, the Trump administration's efforts to restrict immigration and favor certain groups faced challenges as many potential immigrants preferred to stay in their home countries or move to the US when economic and safety conditions were more favorable.
Reducing Legal Immigration under the Trump Administration: The Trump administration implemented policies resulting in significant decreases in legal immigration through hiring freezes, travel bans, refugee admissions limits, and blocking certain categories.
The Trump administration successfully implemented policies to significantly reduce legal immigration into the United States. They achieved this through various means including visa issuance drops due to a hiring freeze and travel bans, limiting refugee admissions, and blocking certain legal immigration categories. These actions had lasting impacts, with the refugee program taking years to rebuild after Trump's term. The administration's explicit goal was to tip the balance of where immigrants were coming from and reduce overall numbers, and they largely succeeded in doing so, despite some legal challenges.
Policies during Trump administration deterred legal and illegal immigration: The Trump administration created bureaucratic hurdles in legal immigration and harsh policies at the border to deter people from coming to the US due to decreased labor demand and increased border security following the Great Recession and post-9/11 years.
During the Trump administration, both the legal immigration system and the border policies were used to deter people from coming to the US. In the legal immigration system, bureaucratic hurdles were created through policies like the "no blank spaces" rule, which led to the denial of applications for minor oversights. At the border, the administration aimed to deter families from coming by implementing harsh policies such as family separation, which caused a national uproar. This shift came about due to a decrease in demand for labor and an increase in border security following the Great Recession and the post-9/11 years. Prior to this, the majority of migrants coming across the border were Mexicans seeking work. However, starting in 2013 and 2014, there was a significant increase in unaccompanied children and families from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, leading to new challenges for the border security apparatus.
U.S. Immigration System Struggles with Asylum Seekers' Influx: The U.S. immigration system, designed for smaller numbers, has been overwhelmed by families seeking asylum, leading to a backlog, 'catch and release', and criticism of Trump's family separation policy. Outdated laws and lack of funding add to the stress.
The U.S. immigration system has been strained due to the influx of families seeking asylum at the border since the Obama administration. The system, which includes a credible fear interview process for expedited removal or a regular removal hearing in immigration courts, was not designed to handle large numbers of applicants. When tens of thousands of families arrived in 2014, the system failed, leading to a backlog and the release of some families into the country with a court date. The Trump administration attempted to stop this "catch and release" process by increasing expedited removal and implementing family separation, which faced criticism and legal challenges. The lack of funding for asylum officers and the outdated 1996 immigration laws have contributed to the ongoing stress on the system.
Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy: Separating Families at the Border: The Trump administration's zero tolerance policy aimed to deter immigration but resulted in over 5,000 family separations, chaos, and lack of reunification process. It did not decrease border crossings and caused international outrage, encouraging more people to come.
The Trump administration's zero tolerance policy, which involved separating children from their parents at the southern border, was intended to deter immigration based on the assumption that people were coming due to a perceived ease of entry. However, this policy led to chaos and a lack of a reunification process, resulting in over 5,000 families being separated. Despite this, border crossings remained high, and the policy did not have the intended effect. The international outrage over family separation may have even encouraged more people to come to the border. The policy was eventually abandoned due to pressure from Mexico and the threat of tariffs.
Trump administration policies led to decrease in border arrivals: The Trump administration's harsh immigration policies led to a decrease in border arrivals, but they were not the only factors and caused unnecessary harm to migrants without addressing root causes.
During the Trump administration, the implementation of various policies, including the expansion of the Remain in Mexico program and the signing of asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, led to a significant decrease in migrant arrivals at the US-Mexico border. However, it's important to note that Mexico's crackdown on migration and the US imposing policies were not the only factors contributing to the drop in arrivals. The Trump administration's goal was to make it nearly impossible for anyone to enter the US, leading to a brutal journey for migrants, and while family unit crossings did decrease, there's no solid evidence that these policies were effective in the long term. The Trump administration's approach was based on causing harm and increasing punishment to deter migration, but it failed to address the root causes of migration and the suffering of migrants along the way.
CDC's Title 42 policy led to record border crossings: The CDC's Title 42 policy allowed for expulsion of migrants without access to asylum, leading to repeat crossings and 15-year high border crossings during the pandemic, and unintended consequences due to Mexican law changes.
Title 42, a public health policy implemented during the pandemic by the CDC, drastically changed the border situation by allowing for the expulsion of migrants without access to asylum. This policy, which circumvented immigration laws, led to an increase in repeat border crossings due to smugglers advertising "repeat crossing packages." Consequently, border crossings reached 15-year highs by the end of 2020, even during the pandemic. The policy also had unintended consequences when a new Mexican law went into effect, preventing the expulsion of families with children under seven, causing a surge in border crossings shortly after Biden took office. Overall, Title 42's implementation marked a return to laissez-faire border policies of the 1980s and 1990s, resulting in a failure to control border crossings.
Biden's Immigration Policy Reversals and Surge in Border Crossings: The Biden administration's reversal of Trump's immigration policies led to a surge in border crossings due to the lack of effective border control measures and the allure of the opportunity to enter the US.
The Biden administration's reversal of certain immigration policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the suspension of third-party repatriation agreements and the Remain in Mexico policy, led to a surge in border crossings. These policies, which were key components of the Trump administration's border control strategy, had been largely ineffective by the time Biden took office due to the pandemic. Title 42, a public health order that allowed for the rapid expulsion of migrants, became the primary border control measure. Despite the Biden administration's messages urging people not to come, the lack of effective border control policies and the allure of the opportunity to enter the US led to a significant increase in border crossings.
Title 42 revocation didn't significantly impact border crossings: The absence of Title 42 led to fewer repeat crossings but an increase in families and demographic shifts, resulting in a larger number of people entering the US
The revocation of Title 42, a public health policy used to expel migrants during the pandemic, did not make a significant difference in overall border crossings as Title 42 was set to expire due to the pandemic's nature. The absence of Title 42 has led to fewer repeat crossings, but an increase in families crossing due to harsher consequences and demographic shifts. Demographics have changed from primarily Central Americans to more Venezuelans and Cubans, with the US lacking repatriation agreements with these countries. Once migrants make it to US soil, they are not easily sent back, leading to a larger number of people entering the country.
U.S. and Mexico strike deal on migrant deportations: The Biden administration made a deal with Mexico to deport certain migrants under Title 42, allowing for 30,000 monthly humanitarian paroles in return.
The United States faced significant challenges in dealing with the influx of migrants from countries like Venezuela, as those countries did not permit deportations and there were no direct flights for deportations. This led to a deal between the Biden administration and Mexico, where the U.S. could deport migrants under Title 42, but in return, Mexico would accept 30,000 migrants from the same countries each month under humanitarian parole. This deal was part of a larger regional migration framework. It's important to note that Title 42, which allowed for the expulsion of migrants without giving them a chance to seek asylum, was a controversial policy and has since been ended. Prior to this, there had been significant increases in border crossings, with numbers approaching those seen at Ellis Island at its peak. While some may view this as hysteria, the numbers were indeed record-breaking and unprecedented for the southern border. Overall, the situation highlighted the complexities and challenges of managing migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Transformation of Border Crossings: The current border situation is not the same as it was 25 years ago due to a shift in motivations for crossing, the lack of legal immigration options, and the ill-equipment of the system to handle high volumes of asylum seekers. Root cause is outdated legal immigration system and lack of Congressional action.
The current high number of crossings at the southern border is not the same as it was 25 years ago. The majority of people are no longer primarily trying to evade arrest, but are turning themselves in to access humanitarian protection. These individuals often have no family or friends in the US and require more support services upon arrival. This transformation is due to a combination of factors, including the transformation of who is coming (people from all over the world), the lack of legal immigration options, and the ill-equipment of the current system to handle the high volume of asylum seekers. The root cause of this situation is the outdated legal immigration system and the lack of Congressional action to address it. Over the last decade, this issue has been building, and smuggler networks have also grown. The decrease in legal immigration and the perception of an open border have created a self-reinforcing cycle. Domestic political attention drawn to the border can also inadvertently serve as an advertisement for potential migrants. Social media and the ease of migration have also played a significant role in this trend.
Migration crisis at Southern border: Complex issue with deep roots and geopolitical implications: Long-term solution to migration crisis requires international cooperation, respect for sovereignty, and addressing root causes
The current migration crisis at the Southern border is a complex issue with deep historical roots and geopolitical implications. The availability of translation apps and social media have made it easier for people to travel and seek asylum in the US, but the lack of resources and political will to process and deny asylum claims has led to a backlog. The Biden administration's attempts to crack down on immigration have had temporary effects, but the long-term solution requires international cooperation, particularly with Mexico. The use of threats and coercion in diplomacy may not be effective, and a collaborative approach that respects Mexico's sovereignty and addresses the root causes of migration is necessary. The upcoming Mexican elections and the potential for a female president add another layer of complexity to the situation. Ultimately, a comprehensive and compassionate solution that prioritizes the safety and dignity of all involved is required.
Mexico's Demands for More Benefits in US Aid Talks: Mexico sought more than financial aid during US immigration negotiations, demanding an end to sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela and legalization for undocumented immigrants.
During the Biden administration's negotiations with Mexico over immigration, the Mexicans demanded not just financial aid but also an end to sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela, and legalization for undocumented immigrants. This indicates that Mexico sees the United States' financial assistance as insufficient and wants more benefits in return. The bipartisan border bill from 2020, which aimed to address the resource limitations at the border, was a serious attempt to fix the issue. It included hiring thousands of new asylum officers and judges, shortening the asylum process, and suspending asylum for some applicants. However, the bill was criticized for its complexity and the lack of input from an independent third party, such as immigration judges or federal courts, in the process. Despite this, the bill acknowledged that people would continue to cross the border and focused on creating an effective process to handle legitimate asylum claims.
Different Approaches to Immigration from Democrats and Republicans: Democrats focus on screening and processing asylum seekers, while Republicans lean towards a 'zero tolerance' policy. The Biden administration has made progress on application backlogs but faces complexities and long wait times for certain visas. Structural issues like green card backlogs require Congressional action.
The Democratic and Republican parties have differing approaches towards immigration, particularly at the border. Democrats aim to screen and process asylum seekers, while Republicans lean towards a "zero tolerance" policy. The Biden administration has made progress in reducing application backlogs in the legal immigration system, but it remains complex and expensive, with long wait times for certain visa categories. The structural issues, such as green card backlogs, require action from Congress. Overall, the Biden administration's stance on immigration aligns more with those who support continued or expanded immigration, while those seeking to reduce immigration numbers may find the Republican approach more appealing.
Understanding the border crisis requires addressing systemic issues within the legal immigration system: To effectively address the border crisis, it's necessary to tackle the underlying systemic issues within the entire legal immigration system.
The border crisis cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather as part of a larger issue with the legal immigration system. As legal immigration becomes increasingly difficult, people are driven to the border as an alternative. Therefore, it's crucial to adopt a broader perspective and address the systemic issues within the entire legal immigration system to understand the root causes of the border situation. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, emphasized this important connection during a recent conversation on Chris Hayes' podcast "Why is this Happening?" Produced by MSNBC and NBC News, the podcast aims to provide in-depth discussions on current events and their underlying causes. To learn more, follow MSNBC Audio on social media using the hashtag #withpod, or visit NBC News.com/WisesHappen for related content.
