As continued funding for the Department of Homeland Security faces a Feb. 13 deadline, the top issue of the day appears to have switched from “can we pay for it?” to “should we do it at all?” While a majority of Americans favor the deportation of all illegal immigrants, lawmakers in Washington, DC, seem poised to do more than water down the rhetoric.
A Reset in Tone
Rep. Mike Lawler, one of only five Republicans who make up the 26-strong New York delegation to the House, broke ranks on Sunday (Feb. 8) with President Donald Trump and roughly 56% of the American public by positing that mass deportations are not a realistic option. Speaking to ABC News, he said:
“People don’t want to see families broken apart. And so there’s got to be a legal path forward, not a path to citizenship, but a legal path forward for people to come out of the shadows so that they can work legally, that they can pay their taxes, pay any back taxes owed, pay a fine, not collect government benefits, and not commit a crime.
“We have over 25 million people in this country who are undocumented. You’re not rounding them all up and kicking them out. It’s not realistic.”
And yet, more than half of US citizens want just that. In fact, three-quarters-plus of Americans want every illegal alien with a criminal record deported. It’s not really a close issue.
All Roads Lead to Rome
A New York representative from across the aisle, House Minority Leader Hakeen Jeffries, took a different path on the immigration debate, but one that ends in the same place. In a CNN interview, he argued, “We know that ICE is completely and totally out of control. They’ve gone way too far, and the American people want them reined in because immigration enforcement should be fair, it should be just and it should be humane.”
So, one side proposes de facto amnesty, and the other wants to curtail the efficacy of immigration enforcement. All roads apparently do lead to Rome. It’s an across-the-aisle consensus that fails to represent the wishes of the American people. It does, however, seem to reflect the priorities of those who live in the coastal states.
The issue is that both positions — beyond being doomed to fail at a legislative level — would only exacerbate the very problem they are aiming to solve.
Illegal or Not?
Consider Lawler’s suggestion. Upward of 25 million people get to stay in the United States. He stresses that they would be unable to claim government benefits, but how realistic is that? Individual states determine who receives benefits, and medical care is highly unlikely to be refused based on immigration status. The costs related to illegal immigration go well beyond simple cash handouts courtesy of the public dole. And then, of course, not facing the prospect of deportation would be a major draw for those considering crossing the border illegally. After all, if they are not going to be removed, why wouldn’t they?
For Jeffries, defanging enforcement of border and immigration laws has much the same effect. If illegal migrants aren’t going to be deported, what are the negative consequences of coming illegally?
It’s important to note that the roles seem more than a little reversed. The Republican, Lawler, is pushing for an amnesty – traditionally the Democrat position. And Jeffries, the Democrat, is not pushing for amnesty but rather a more “humane” method of dealing with an illegal immigration problem that few of his fellow party members are even willing to admit exists.
A New York State of Mind
With another three years left of the Donald Trump presidency, there’s almost no chance of a major move on amnesty. And despite the president agreeing to remove 700 ICE agents from Minnesota, the overall mission of illegal immigrant deportations continues. Jeffries and Lawler surely know two things. First, that their respective policy ideas are dead in the water for at least the next 36 months. And, second, that the American people don’t support their positions.
But the people who send them to Washington might.
With the November elections fast approaching, politicians across the nation are eager to retain the cushy seats they have been fortunate enough to win. In a presidential election year, it’s all about riding the coattails of their White House pick. But in an off year, it’s every man for himself. Promises can be made with impunity, and politicos can disregard the party line in favor of weathervane posturing. As Groucho Marx famously quipped, “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others.”
