The Democrats' total capitulation on the border
What did Democrats receive for gifting Trump so much at the border? Nothing.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers last night reportedly came to an agreement on border enforcement funding to avert another government shutdown before the Friday deadline. Yet after all this drama, it's unclear if Democrats accomplished much beyond virtue signaling to their base. If anything, they may have given Trump a green light to forge ahead with his draconian interior enforcement agenda without any meaningful oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Details of the deal are still trickling in but it seems clear that after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged not to give Trump even a "dollar" for his wall, Democrats agreed to hand him $1.375 billion to build a 55-mile long barrier in the Rio Grande Valley. They're trying to spin this as mere "pedestrian fencing." Trump, who is never shy of staring a gift horse in the mouth, is saying it’s not enough. But it's pretty clear that Democrats gave in.
In addition, they agreed to hand the Department of Homeland Security an additional $1.7 billion for border security, including technology at ports of entry, more officers and, as an afterthought, some humanitarian aid.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Handing Trump some wall money might have been worth it if Democrats had got something in return like legalizing the DREAMers (folks who've grown up in America after being brought to the country without proper authorization as minors) and others whose temporary protected status Trump scrapped. But Democrats failed to even put this on the table despite many hints by Republicans that they would consider a DREAMer-for-wall deal. The Democratic Party seems to be more interested in rallying their base with the issue than actually solving it.
Even worse, Democrats capitulated to the administration's demand for maintaining its inflated detention bed capacity to house unauthorized immigrants, the lynchpin of its draconian enforcement actions.
Negotiations broke down over the weekend because Democrats were insisting on limiting funding for "only" 35,000 detention beds with the stipulation that no more than 16,500 would be used for housing immigrants picked up from the interior, i.e. not at the border. This was a very modest attempt to restore some sanity — and humanity — to this administration's interior enforcement policies given that the first thing that Trump did upon assuming office was scrap former President Barack Obama's priority enforcement program. This program, implemented at the tail end of Obama's term after he'd set deportation records, confined ICE to rounding up only those aliens in the interior who had criminal records while leaving others alone. But Trump made everyone fair game, including those who've lived peacefully in the country for years.
To aid Trump's efforts, the Republican-controlled Congress gave him funds for around 40,500 detention beds. This represented about a 6,500 increase over previous years. But Trump exceeded even that inflated authorization, maintaining a daily population of 48,000 detained immigrants — including 20,000 from the interior.
Where did that money come from? Basically, by raiding the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, arguably a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, the federal law that prohibits agencies from diverting funds not explicitly authorized by Congress. All in all, DHS spent $4.1 billion on ICE's detention and removal operations in 2018, a 30 percent spike over the $3.2 billion spent in 2016. This is an unconscionable waste given that border apprehensions have dropped precipitously over the last decade, Trump's fear mongering about the migrant caravan notwithstanding.
Trump says that any cutbacks in this detention capacity would force him to release violent aliens. But that's simply not true. An analysis last summer by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that 75 percent of the immigrants typically detained have no prior convictions or have been engaged in only minor offenses like traffic violations. This means that even if Trump's detention capacity were cut in less than half, no violent offenders would need to be released.
But that didn't stop Trump from demanding funding for 52,000 beds during the budget negotiations. The Democrats didn't give him that but they agreed to fund 40,520 beds — or 5,520 over their original offer and pretty much what the Republican-controlled Congress handed Trump last year. Worse, this is not a hard statuary cap so Trump can keep trying to exceed it by ginning up funds from elsewhere as he's been doing. (It's unclear right now if Democrats are insisting on any limits on housing interior detentions.)
Democrats are trying to sell this as a reasonable compromise by claiming that this funding level represents a 17-percent cut in detention over current levels. But Trump was maintaining those levels using unauthorized funds. In other words, far from calling out Trump for illegally exceeding Congressional limits, Democrats are using Trump's detention levels as their official baseline.
So, all in all, Trump got more money for a border barrier, enhanced border security, and increased detention capacity. What did Democrats get? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Shikha Dalmia is a visiting fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University studying the rise of populist authoritarianism. She is a Bloomberg View contributor and a columnist at the Washington Examiner, and she also writes regularly for The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. She considers herself to be a progressive libertarian and an agnostic with Buddhist longings and a Sufi soul.
-
The future of fluoridated water is up for debate
The Explainer The oral benefits are watery
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
'It's easier to break something than to build it'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
ABC News to pay $15M in Trump defamation suit
Speed Read The lawsuit stemmed from George Stephanopoulos' on-air assertion that Trump was found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published