I brought this up once already this week but it seems the media is now leaning on Republicans to pass the save-Biden’s-ass border bill even harder so I want to bring it up again. There are many ways to approach this but I’m going to focus on this piece titled “Pass the Immigration Bill” by David French.

While I think there’s an obvious problem the French’s argument, his piece is well written and does spell out some of what is going on in the present argument starting with an admission that we do have a serious border problem. And that leads to another admission which I think is also unavoidable at this point: our asylum system is broken and is being gamed by people who have learned how to take advantage of it:

As Julia Preston wrote in an outstanding and comprehensive report for Foreign Affairs: “After years of stalemate in Washington on immigration reform, the asylum bureaucracy has become its own de facto immigration system.” Worse, “It no longer serves people escaping danger that it was designed to protect; nor does it bring any order to the challenges of securing the border and integrating newcomers into the U.S. economy.”…

To trigger the asylum process, a person need only set foot in the United States and assert to border officials that his life or freedom is under threat because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

Over at the Washington Post, fact-checker Glenn Kessler pointed out some interesting data about the asylum system which makes clear it is being gamed.

Relatively few asylum claims ultimately pass muster. For fiscal years 2017 to 2023, fewer than 15 out of every 100 people who claimed a fear of persecution or torture if they were returned to their home country were ultimately granted asylum, the Justice Department says — and the number dropped below 12 in 2023. Many were ordered removed in absentia when they failed to appear in court.

This is clearly a system that is burdened with a lot of people who shouldn’t be part of it in the first place. Which brings us to the solutions at hand. Here, French tries to contrast Trump’s solution to this problem, known as the MPP or Remain in Mexico Policy, and the new alternative being presented as part of this border bill. Here’s his take on both:

Remain in Mexico suffered from two major deficiencies, however. The first is that it requires the participation and cooperation of the Mexican government, something that no administration can guarantee. The second is that it may be unlawful…

The bill’s text hasn’t yet been released, but its outline is promising. Among other elements, it would grant the Department of Homeland Security the authority to shut down the border “if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span.” If the daily average for the week hits 5,000, or if the encounters top 8,500 in a single day, the law would require a shutdown.

French makes a big point of saying we can’t just reinstate Trump’s MPP because Mexico is not on board. And here’s Kessler at the Post saying the same thing:

Biden sought to end the program as soon as he took office but only won final court approval in 2022. Johnson’s office listed reinstating “Remain in Mexico’ as a step Biden could take. The Mexican government, which has to agree to take back non-Mexican migrants, opposes a restart.

So the problem with MPP is that Mexico doesn’t want to participate.

Question: If we shut down the border for weeks or months at a time where are all of the migrants trying to get across wind up waiting?

Answer: Mexico.

So, has Mexico agreed to taking care of hundreds of thousands of would-be asylum seekers while we shutter the border? Because if not then the new bill seems to have the same problem as the MPP. In both cases we are just asking Mexico to handle it for us. What if Mexico refuses? Human Rights watch has already written a letter to President ALMO encouraging him to refuse any new deal.

US President Joe Biden and members of the US Congress are currently considering harsh new immigration measures that would contravene international human rights standards and expose thousands of migrants and asylum seekers to harm. Some of the proposed measures would require the Mexican government’s consent to be implemented.

“President López Obrador has the opportunity to stand up for the rights of thousands of vulnerable mostly Latin American migrants and asylum seekers by refusing to make yet another deal to allow the US to summarily expel people to Mexico,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “The Mexican president should make it clear he does not intend to be complicit in US legislators’ attempts to tear apart the US asylum system.”

It’s just very odd to me that French can see the problem with Trump’s MPP but not with the Senate/Biden solution which could easily spawn massive tent camps on the Mexican side of the border that lead to lots of problems and an unhappy southern neighbor.

French’s other problem with MPP is that the 9th Circuit said it was illegal. Okay. So what’s to prevent some progressive group from filing a lawsuit against the new border bill arguing that trapping would-be asylum seekers in Mexico is also illegal? What’s to prevent Mexico from suing us? Does French really believe that open-border leftists are just going to pack up their tent and go home?

To be fair, French does say part of the new bill is aimed at greatly adding to the number of immigration judges and reducing the time it takes to issue a decision on asylum claim. That’s a good idea which might help but who is to say that, once a judge issues that decision in 6 months instead of 6 years, ICE won’t continue to ignore the outcome of those cases unless someone has committed a crime. That’s how things operate now. Are we really going to start deporting the people who’ve been here 6 months? Or is this just a more efficient system that will be gamed anyway.

It seems to me there are quite a few potential problems with the new bill which Democrats and moderates aren’t remotely interested in exploring at this moment. Instead, the push is to get the deal done as quickly as possible and worry about the problems sometime after the 2024 election.