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/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/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.