Robb: Why is Trump botching the immigration issue?
Posted
Robert Robb
SUBMITTED PHOTO
By Robert Robb
Donald Trump should have Kamala Harris on the run on the immigration issue. But he doesn’t, because he keeps botching the argument — never more so, or more consequentially so, than in the debate.
The sense that immigration is out of control is now a salient issue well beyond the restrictionist right. It could be an issue that helps move swing voters in swing states toward Trump.
Trump has an argument reasonably grounded in reality that would resonate with those voters, who will probably decide the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. That argument would go as follows:
Both the Obama and Biden administrations adopted an official policy of turning a blind eye to mere illegal presence as an immigration offense, in the guise of setting enforcement priorities. Trump reversed that policy when he inherited it from Obama. Trump adopted restrictionist measures that resulted in a reduction in border apprehensions, a proxy for whether illegal immigration is waxing or waning.
The Biden administration abandoned these measures and border apprehensions soared. It was only as the election approached and immigration became a potentially fatal political problem that the Biden administration took any meaningful executive action to address the problem.
Simply put, Trump took immigration enforcement seriously. The Obama and Biden administrations didn’t. And there’s no reason to think that, except on the campaign stump, Harris would either.
Now, I think there is a big hole in that argument. I think the waxing and waning of border apprehensions had more to do with COVID than with any policies adopted, although one of Trump’s restrictionist measures was COVID-related. When the U.S. was largely shut down, attempts to enter the country went down. When the U.S. opened back up, attempts to enter the country rebounded. That said, I do think the perception that the Biden administration was friendlier to attempts to immigrate, both legally and illegally, was a factor in the post-COVID soar.
Even given that hole, there’s truth to the claim that Trump took immigration enforcement more seriously than Obama or Biden, and is more likely to take it seriously than Harris.
This, however, isn’t the argument that Trump is making. There wasn't a single component of this argument in what Trump said about immigration in the debate, his biggest opportunity to reach swing voters in swing states on the issue.
Instead, Trump characterized illegal immigrants as hardened criminals who were eating other people’s pets. And he vowed mass deportations. He offered no specifics about the differences between his policies and Biden’s. I guess he thought calling Harris a Marxist was sufficient explanation.
Harris is being given credit for putting Trump off his game by baiting him. I thought attempting to bait him might detract from the larger political objective, for her, of showing presidential gravitas to those same swing voters in swing states. That turned out not to be the case. She did both adroitly.
However, there was nothing in her baiting that induced Trump to make this case on immigration, rather than the case that would be more persuasive to swing voters in swing states. This was the way Trump chose to present himself on the issue in this particular forum.
Now, generally characterizing illegal immigrants as hardened criminals who eat pets and vowing mass deportations may jazz up the MAGA base. But I can’t imagine it moves the needle in Trump's direction among swing voters in swing states. In fact, I suspect it moves the needle away from him.
The biggest immigration problem right now isn’t illegal immigration, people trying to enter the country without being caught. It’s people showing up, turning themselves in, and claiming asylum. Generally, they are admitted and given a court date several years in the future. In the interim, as a practical matter, they have what amounts to legal status.
Outside of MAGAland, people know that, overwhelmingly, people seeking entry, either illegally or through asylum claims, aren’t hardened criminals but human beings trying to achieve a better and safer life for themselves and their families. Outside of MAGAland, concern about the capacity of our country to absorb the current level of immigration, and a desire for immigration to be orderly rather than disorderly, doesn’t include demonizing those from other countries who want to come here and often are fleeing dangerous environments and intractable poverty.
Among swing voters in swing states, I suspect there is an understanding and appreciation of the complexities wrought by the lack of effective enforcement of immigration laws over the years. There are now millions of blended families in the United States, with some members being legally present and some not.
Trump is proposing more than the deportation through attrition approach the more responsible policy advocates on the restrictionist right have advanced, basically having law enforcement no longer turn a blind eye to illegal presence. While Trump is vague on the specifics, he is implying mass roundups, which would tear apart millions of blended families. And wouldn’t reach those awaiting adjudication of asylum claims.
I doubt that swing voters in swing states favor that. And I suspect that they doubt, as do most policy experts, that Trump could bring it off, or will even try. It's a reminder of Trump’s vow to build a border wall and have Mexico pay for it. Trump as an immigration blowhard, not an immigration problem-solver.
Trump could largely bifurcate his audience on immigration, using the demagogic rhetoric at his rallies and in turnout appeals to his base, while making the more persuasive argument to broader audiences, such as those watching the debate. His base wouldn’t have held it against him if he had made the contrasting policy argument sketched above, and left the hardened, pet-eating criminals stuff for another day and forum.
So, why didn’t he?
Perhaps, in part, he has wrapped himself inside a MAGA bubble and has lost touch with what’s out there in the broader political universe. There are some signs of that.
However, the larger reason, I fear, is much more disquieting, since he is one of two people who will be the next president of the United States. Politically, Trump is an instinctive demagogue. Demagoguery is the only political language he is capable of speaking, even when it is to his political disadvantage.
