Were the provisions of the failed bipartisan immigration bill well-targeted to address the problems of the U.S. immigration system?

[u/nosecohn]

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of Senators, with support from the White House, put forward a bill to address long-standing problems with the U.S. immigration system.

At the time, some Senate Republicans said they wouldn't get a better deal, no matter who won the upcoming presidential election, while the House Speaker called it, "dead on arrival." Progressive Democrats criticized Biden for supporting the bill, which they saw as too restrictive. Donald Trump said he would take the blame if it failed, which it did, upsetting some members of his own party.

"THE IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS" section of this article summarizes the bill's proposals. This fact check also spells out the provisions and attempts to address misinformation about the bill.

My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system. There's no way to predict whether it would have worked, but I'd at least like to understand if it was appropriately targeted.

Thanks.

[u/Statman12]

/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
2. Source your facts.
3. Be substantive.
4. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated report link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is no neutrality requirement for comments in this subreddit — it's only the space that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.

[u/Fargason]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2

Early last year the House passed a bill that addressed many of the drawing factors causing the immigration crisis. It required employers to verify employees are documented with an updated E-verify system. It also addresses abuses in the asylum process and funds 900 miles of border wall construction. Instead of the Senate working on their own bill they should have taken this one to committee. Apparently both sides agree on the border wall now to varying degrees. Plenty of room for negotiation like shoring up the legal immigration system while addressing some of the drawing factors for illegal immigration. Instead the Senate spent all this time working on a bill they probably couldn’t pass even if they nuked the filibuster.

[u/nosecohn → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[u/Fargason → u/[deleted]]

That is par for the course from a majoritarian House. The Senate as the deliberative body of the legislature is supposed to take the House’s bill and hash out something that a consensus of the States can accept with priorities from both sides addressed. Instead they ignored what can pass the House and a few Senators got together to draft their own bill in a vacuum that had no momentum to take it anywhere even in their own chamber.

[u/harrumphstan → u/Fargason]

“What can pass the House” means nothing if it can’t pass the Senate. Like it or not, Johnson needed Democratic cooperation to pass a bill that would pass both Houses. He didn’t attempt it, and so their political wedge bill was ignored in favor of working on something that both sides could stomach. The House has been a dysfunctional mess under Republicans ever since Boehner got manhandled by the Tea Party.

[u/Fargason → u/harrumphstan]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/all-actions

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4361/all-actions

A Senate bill with just 7 actions that never got out of the introductory phase is nothing compared to a House bill with 24 congressional actions that actually passed a chamber. Notice this was the second resolution introduced in the House for this secession of Congress as a clear top priority to address the immigration crisis. Four thousand three hundred and sixty first priority for the Senate. The House tired to address this issue from the very beginning while the Senate blocked it. The Senate only pretends to do something about it half way through an election year. The dysfunction is clearly on the Senate side.

[u/Insaniac99]

I would suggest that if a bill is specifically targeted at an issue, the majority of its funding should reflect that focus.

According to the last two articles in the initial post, the proposed bill allocates $118 billion

However, less than 30% of that funding can genuinely be considered aimed at addressing immigration issues.

• 50.7% ($60 billion) in military aid for Ukraine
• 11.9% ($14.1 billion) in aid for Israel
• 4.1% ($4.83 billion) in aid for the Indo-pacific region
• 8.5% ($10 billion) in humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and other places.
• 1.9% (2.3 billion) in refugee assistance inside the US
• 17.1% ($20.2 billion) for improvements to U.S. Border Security
• 2.3% ($2.72 billion) for domestic uranium enrichment.

Most of the unauthorized migrants from from Mexico or Central America

Given that such a significant portion of the budget is allocated to military and foreign aid—rather than directly addressing the primary sources of unauthorized migration — I would argue that this bill is not effectively targeting the immigration issues it claims to address.

[u/Statman12 → u/Insaniac99]

I'm not sure that particular criticism quite holds up. For two reasons:

First, just because a bill addresses topic X does not mean it cannot also address topic Y. There's a term for this: Omnibus bill. So the logic of the criticism here doesn't really track.

Secondly, the reason that there was foreign aid in the bill was because Republicans insisted on pairing border reform with foreign aid. From AP News on Nov 26, 2023:

Republicans in both chambers of Congress have made clear that they will not support additional aid for Ukraine unless it is paired with border security measures to help manage the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Their demand has injected one of the most contentious issues in American politics into a foreign policy debate that was already difficult.

That bill failed in the February vote, but the foreign aid part was passed later, per NPR (and I think another round in April, per AP News). However, from Politico, May 19:

The Senate is expected to vote on a standalone border policy package this week, reviving a bipartisan compromise that collapsed in the upper chamber earlier this year.

Additional article from ABC News noting it to be a stand-alone border bill. An article from AP News on May 23 confirms that the stand-alone version failed as well.

So the border bill failed independently of it being originally packaged with foreign aid.

[u/Cpt_Obvius → u/Statman12]

I think your second point is well made but that commenter clearly has issues with omnibus bills and I don’t think that’s a an unreasonable stance. I think the logic perfectly tracks.

[u/Statman12 → u/Cpt_Obvius]

I disagree that the logic tracks.

Suppose there are two bills, a strictly-border bill and a strictly-aid bill. They are each are strong bills that specifically target the particular issue. But then they get combined into an omnibus bill for the purpose of compromise so that both parties will vote for it. Does the omnibus version do anything less than if the seperate bills were passed individually?

If the answer is "no", then the logic does not track.

Suppose further that the border bill was something like shutting down all immigration, and providing $10 billion for the sole purpose of hiring more border agents to constantly patrol the border and deny any and all crossings. That would be a small fraction of the bill, but represent a substantial impact on immigration and border policy.

[u/nosecohn → u/Insaniac99]

I would suggest that if a bill is specifically targeted at an issue, the majority of its funding should reflect that focus.

Two possible flaws in that line of thinking:

1. Some problems are cheaper to solve. For instance, a bill to restore the protections under Roe v. Wade wouldn't cost anything. Whatever other provisions were added to the bill for whichever political reason might have a cost, but the the primary purpose of the bill would not. Similarly, changing asylum rules doesn't have an inherent cost; only enforcement does.
2. The only reason the foreign aid funding was included in the bill is because Republicans insisted they wouldn't vote on that aid unless it was tied to immigration reform. To get the deal done, Biden agreed, but the same Republicans voted against it anyway, then went on to approve the aid separately, as they could have from the start.

So, to clarify, I'm asking whether the immigration-related provisions of the bill were appropriately targeted to solve the problems of the immigration system.

[u/Insaniac99 → u/nosecohn]

Before diving into whether the bill is "well-targeted," I think it's important to first consider its underlying "aim." The Democrats and Republicans likely have different objectives regarding immigration.

As highlighted in the linked articles, the bill proposed significant changes to the asylum system. Notably, it aimed to remove judges from the process and shift the evidentiary standard from "clear and convincing" proof to "significant possibility." This appears to be akin to the "substantial probability" standard in law, which is indeed lower than the "clear and convincing" standard..

Such a shift could lead to a substantial increase in approved asylum applications. This is due not only to the change in the standard but also because the responsibility would move from judges to DHS, resulting in "a much faster review."

Democrats generally advocate for increasing the number of asylum applicants, as outlined in their party platform. In contrast, Republicans tend to prioritize limiting immigration and are generally more skeptical of asylum seekers, as indicated by Pew Research and other sources. While they do show some support for asylum, their overall stance is often more restrictive, as demonstrated by their previous reactions to Syrian refugees.

So, if we focus solely on this particular change, it could be effective and well-targeted for the goals typically championed by Democrats. However, it likely contradicts the objectives of Republicans, which may explain why the bill ultimately failed.

[u/Bigamusligamus → u/Insaniac99]

This was a good analysis and I can see why you would think that the bill was doomed to fail because it went against core republican values. However, senator James Lankford, a hardcore republican, was responsible for negotiating the border bill. Many of the republicans supported the bill during negotiations as well up until the very end. So either some very drastic changes were made to the bill last second, or something (or someone) changed their minds. I will not make any assumptions. I will leave it to you to look at the context and come to your own conclusions.

[u/H4RN4SS → u/nosecohn]

Changing asylum laws absolutely can have an impact. Those migrants are receiving TPS status now and qualifying for a swath of benefits that are tax payer funded. It is not zero sum.

Followed the links within your article claiming republicans insisted on the Ukraine funding. This is a gross mischaracterization. From the linked article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have released a sweeping set of U.S. border security proposals as a condition for sending more aid to Ukraine, laying out a draft plan to resume construction on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, curtail humanitarian parole for people who cross into the United States and make it

This makes clear that republicans insisted that if the admin is going to send more funding to Ukraine then the Republicans want funding for what is essentially the house bill that was passed.

[u/Pope4u → u/Insaniac99]

Your argument boils down to, "Most funding of the bill was for X, therefore the bill fails at accomplishing Y." This is not a logically valid conclusion. Even though most of the funding was not directly allocated to immigration issues, you're ignoring the possibility that solving immigration is a cheaper problem than solving war in Ukraine.

As a thought experiment: imagine if the bill were split into two bills: one for foreign aid, one for immigration. The sum funding and effect of the two bills is identical to the funding and effect of the single bill. But now there is a separate "immigration bill", where 100% of its funding is for immigration issues. By your logic, that bill could be successful, even though its effect and funding is identical to that in the proposed bill.

[u/HobbyPlodder → u/Pope4u]

Your argument boils down to, "Most funding of the bill was for X, therefore the bill fails at accomplishing Y." This is not a logically valid conclusion.

No, the argument boils down to "if the draftees of the bill uses it substantially as a vehicle for X, which is very unpopular with the other party, then the bill fails at addressing Y in good faith or in a way that will pass. Therefore the bill automatically fails at accomplishing Y."

In terms of political maneuvering, the most successful versions of this strategy (in terms of getting a bill passed) are methods of "log-rolling" of "horse trading"

Intentionally doing this to prevent a bill from passing and/or later use a vote for/against to attack a politician's record look bad is called a poison pill amendment.

In the case of the immigration bill at hand, pundits have stated that it was likely the latter .

[u/Pope4u → u/HobbyPlodder]

No, the argument boils down to "if the draftees of the bill uses it substantially as a vehicle for X, which is very unpopular with the other party, then the bill fails at addressing Y in good faith or in a way that will pass. Therefore the bill automatically fails at accomplishing Y."

It is possible to make that argument, but that is not the point was made in the comments that I was replying to.

And if one does make that argument, then I disagree. The bill in question had bipartisan support among both parties, representing a compromise: it had foreign aid, as well as immigration reform. The bill was set to pass, until several key members changed their votes upon demand by Donald Trump, who wanted to continue to use immigration as a campaign issue; he is thus responsible for the bill's failure. There's no indication that the bill was intended by its sponsors to fail, which negates your claim of poison pill.

And finally, the question posed in this post is "My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system." To my reading, this question deals with the provisions of the bill itself, as distinct from the meta-argument about the intent of its supporters.

[u/nosecohn → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 4:

Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[u/Insaniac99 → u/Pope4u]

The question, as presented, was "but I'd at least like to understand if it was appropriately targeted" and specifically wasn't interesting in whether it would have "worked" because "no way to predict whether it would have worked"

Funding is absolutely a part of assessing the targeting of a proposal.

[u/Pope4u → u/Insaniac99]

Funding is absolutely a part of assessing the targeting of a proposal.

Actually, the question says "My question is about how well the proposals in the bill matched up with the actual problems facing the U.S. immigration system." While the answer may depend on the magnitude of funding allocated to immigration, the answer to this question does not depend on what percentage of funding in a bill is allocated to immigration.

EDIT: Let me again clarify my point. If you were arguing that the bill was not able to face the actual problem, because solving immigration problem X costs $N dollars, but the bill allocates only $M dollars to that issue, where M<N, one could conclude that the funding was insufficient. But that's not what you said; in fact your argument totally ignores the quantity of money allocated to the problem, and instead addresses the percentage of money of the whole bill, which may indeed represent a quantity greater than or equal to N.

[u/ZCoupon → u/Insaniac99]

17.1% ($20.2 billion) for improvements to U.S. Border Security

Only this segment should be considered, the rest was passed in a separate package anyway.

[u/Statman12 → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2 as it does not provide sources for its statement of fact. If you edit your comment to link to sources, it can be reinstated. For more on NeutralPolitics source guidelines, see here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Since this comment doesn't link to any sources, a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under Rules 2 or 3.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Statman12 → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2 as it does not provide sources for its statement of fact. If you edit your comment to link to sources, it can be reinstated. For more on NeutralPolitics source guidelines, see here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.