On Trust and “Enforcing the Laws” in the Immigration Reform Debate - A Response to Speaker Boehner

Today, Speaker Boehner once again repeated the new Republican excuse for inaction on immigration reform – the President has failed to enforce immigration laws, and cannot be trusted to see through commitments on border security and other enforcement objectives.  

Let’s take a quick look at both these claims.  
 
On the issue of border security, a new pragmatism has begun to break out in many quarters in what has long been a contentious issue.   In its introductory paragraph, the Senate Gang of 8 framework included these words:
 
 “And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations…”
 
The Senate Judiciary Committee added more customs agents to the border to help facilitate our exploding trade relationship with Mexico, and no additional border guards.  The recent 2014 budget resolution made smart investments in border infrastructure, added more customs agents, and did not add more border patrol.  
 
The reason that as a nation we’ve begun to move beyond the “enforcement only” approach to the border is that after a decade of significant investment, better strategies and much greater cooperation with Mexico, the border is far safer than it was, net migration of unauthorized immigrants has dropped to zero all while trade with Mexico has more than doubled.  A reasonable look at the data would lead one to conclude that the border is on track to be safe and largely under control, with the main effort now modernizing a trade and tourism infrastructure designed for a trade relationship at levels hundreds of billions of dollars less than it is today.    
 
The Obama Administration deserves far more credit for managing the tough realities and politics of the border than they have gotten.  Our border is 2,000 miles long, it extends across four states, and the threat of cartel violence on the Mexican side is very real.  It is one of the busiest borders in the world, with billions of dollars of trade and millions of people crossing each week.  That the two largest border cities on the US side of the border, El Paso and San Diego, are the two safest large cities in America today is simply an extraordinary accomplishment.  4 of the 5 high traffic migration corridors are at or close to the widely accepted goal of a 90% effectiveness rate, spillover violence is rare, and just in the past few months Mexico has announced unprecedented efforts on their northern and southern borders which should do much to improve the situation in the years ahead.   More, of course, can be done, and the Senate bill invests in the things most border experts think is most needed now – better technology and more customs agents.  
 
Coming out of their retreat last week, the House leadership has adopted a very hard line on “securing the border,” and has repeatedly said the Obama Administration cannot be trusted on the issue.  Given its new centrality to their reform approach, the House leadership simply must put a real plan and budget for “securing” the border on the table immediately.  Their rhetorical rejection of the very real progress made on the border in recent years is a worrying sign about their lack of seriousness; and if they insist border security is a trigger even for legal status, no negotiations with the House should begin until they come to the table with an actual plan.  Trust works both ways.  The House leadership cannot expect the Senate to accept triggers on legal status/citizenship if the metrics and funding levels are not spelled out in great detail.   
 
The mischaracterization of the progress made by the Obama Administration impacts the interior enforcement portions of the “Standards” document as well.  At the root of the GOP’s concern is the Administration’s decision to prioritize criminal migrants for deportation, known as “prosecutorial discretion.”  In what is a tortured ideological position, the House GOP opposes this practice, preferring that law enforcement just round up everyone, and remarkably, NOT prioritize criminals.  The President used this rationale to authorize DACA, the 2012 executive order which gave DREAM-eligible youth relief from deportation.  The simple idea is that if the President can prioritize the front of the deportation line, he can also prioritize the back of it – determining that there is a class of unauthorized migrant who should not be deported.   
 
Thus by using DHS’s limited resources to get rid of the most dangerous of the unauthorized population, the Administration is, by this GOP logic, not enforcing immigration law.  Yes, this is a little hard to believe.  
 
One would not know from the “Standards” that President Obama has deported migrants at a higher rate than any other modern President, and has, in recent years, deported criminal migrants at double or triple the rate of previous Presidents.  It will be interesting to see how the House GOP can improve upon that record without providing billions in new resources, or rolling over local elected officials and law enforcement who will strenuously oppose the appropriation of local resources to enforce what is a federal responsibility.  
 
Given this track record, why exactly are the House Republicans walking from immigration reform?  The border is safer today, net migration is zero, deportations of criminal migrants are at all time highs while trade with Mexico has exploded, creating millions of jobs on both sides of the border.  There is a strong argument to be made that no President in American history has been more committed to enforcing our immigration laws and improving border security than President Obama.  If they are going to walk away from immigration reform for the 3rd time in the last decade, the House leadership are going to have find a far better set of excuses.  
 
For more information see the following backgrounders:
 
The Administration's Border Strategy Has Yielded Very Strong Results
 
NDN/NPI Background on Mexico Prior to Feb Visits by Pres Obama, Sec Pritzker