It has also put pressure on the president and his team to come up with what they promised, an effective system that both protects the border and treats asylum seekers with the compassion Americans traditionally afford those seeking a better life.
Republicans contend Biden bears primary responsibility for what’s happening because of his vow to reverse Donald Trump’s hard-line policies. There is some truth in that, as even some officials acknowledged.
“Surges tend to respond to hope,” Ambassador Roberta Jacobson, the administration’s Coordinator for the Southern Border, told a White House briefing. “I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people” to come.
But she and other officials rejected Republican accusations the new administration is pursuing an “open border” policy, noting many more asylum seekers are being sent home than admitted.
Still, Jacobson and the new secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, have sent out conflicting signals.
Testifying to Congress, Mayorkas said the administration’s message to would-be asylum seekers is, “Don’t come now.” But Jacobson told Reuters, “The message isn’t ‘Don’t come now’; it’s ‘Don’t come in this way, ever.’ ”
Another complication was Mexico’s reversal of its agreement to house asylum seekers south of the U.S. border. Last week, it agreed to resume sheltering them in return for expanded supplies of anti-COVID vaccine. And the White House has dispatched envoys to Central America to help resolve the issue.
In any case, the problem goes far beyond the new administration’s welcoming attitude and the fact that it is detaining more children and teens than the legal limit.
Indeed, the underlying problem is that administrations of neither party have been able to establish a more effective immigration system, exacerbated by the continuing congressional failure to deal with the problem. Too many lawmakers have been more interested in playing politics than reaching an equitable accommodation.
At least twice in the last 15 years – in 2007 during the second Bush administration and in 2013 under the Obama administration — the pieces were in place for a bipartisan legislative package to replace the current set of ad hoc policies, but the bills failed.
In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan plan, only to see it founder in the House because GOP leaders refused to bring a measure to the floor that would rely on Democratic votes to pass.
More recently, during the Trump administration, a narrower compromise collapsed when the former president reversed himself and rejected a bipartisan package combining funding for his cherished anti-immigration wall with a legal path for the thousands of dreamers brought to this country as children.
Upon taking office, Biden fulfilled a campaign promise to propose a comprehensive immigration plan, calling for a path to citizenship for many of the millions of undocumented workers currently in the United States as well as stepped-up efforts to help Central American countries reduce the violence that has prompted many to flee.
But it is unlikely to pass either chamber anytime soon. Last week, the House narrowly passed one bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamers” and others granted asylum for their protection, and a second one for thousands of agricultural workers. The first bill attracted nine Republicans, the second 30. But key Democrats concede even those more modest measures face a Senate stalemate.
One Republican who still favors comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for millions who came here illegally, is former President George W. Bush.
“Rather than ignore the situation, we’ve got to address it,” Bush said last week in an interview with Texas Tribune Chief Executive Evan Smith. Bush’s new book, “Out of Many, One: Portraits of America’s Immigrants,” contains his painted portraits and written profiles of 43 American immigrants.
Bush said sending back millions to their original countries is “a political pipe dream.” He added that passing broader legislation is “very hard, but that’s not to say one shouldn’t try.”
The impasse means any short-term solutions will almost certainly continue to be administrative, rather than legislative. And just as it is easier to prevent passage of immigration legislation, it’s easy to challenge the legal basis for efforts to resolve these issues administratively.
Meanwhile, despite its initial difficulties, the Biden administration likely still has some time to show it can be both more humane than the Trump administration and more effective. But its initial experience shows that neither part will be easy.
