The continuing resolution under which the Department of Homeland Security is being funded will end on February 27. The House has passed a new DHS appropriations bill. This week Senate Democrats have used procedural votes to block further progress by the House bill.
Riders on the House appropriations measure would constrain Presidential discretion on immigration enforcement. Many Republicans perceive this is needed to deter illegal immigration and to reassert what they understand to be appropriate constitutional boundaries. The President is “making” rather than enforcing the law, they complain. Many Democrats, including the President, perceive the House bill to be constitutionally myopic or naive, operationally impractical, and deeply inhumane.
The constitutional issues strike me as murky, but not entirely outside reasonable consideration. Deterrence is often inhumane, in a way that’s the point of many negative actions intended to deter. The core issue — ethically and politically — is mostly about what ought be done with an estimated eleven million unauthorized immigrants already in the United States. We are divided between arguments of principle and pragmatism, accountability and mercy. These divisions are sufficiently deep that, so far, we do little more than question the intentions of those with a different opinion. Progress on this core seems so unlikely that each side is tempted to various end-runs and special plays.
Caught in the middle of this skirmish is the DHS budget. In the last week there has been more and more talk of letting the CR expire and holding the Department hostage. Why talk about it when playing chicken is so much more fun?
Last week Politico reported,
Top Republicans are increasingly unworried about missing the Department of Homeland Security’s funding deadline… Lessening the urgency, in some minds, of passing a Homeland Security funding bill is the fact that DHS’s operations wouldn’t necessarily shut down if funding expires after Feb. 27. In the October 2013 federal government shutdown, roughly 85 percent of DHS employees continued to work because their jobs were considered essential. However, their paychecks were withheld until the shutdown was over.
“In other words, it’s not the end of the world if we get to that time because the national security functions will not stop — whether it’s border security or a lot of other issues,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said, though he stressed that Congress shouldn’t ignore that deadline. “Having said so, I think we should always aspire to try to get it done.”
The Congressman’s first sentence, above, has gotten more attention than his second. This includes a White House website headline posted above remarks the President made on Monday at the Nebraska Avenue offices of the Department.
If Republicans let Homeland Security funding expire, it’s the end to any new initiatives in the event that a new threat emerges. It’s the end of grants to states and cities that improve local law enforcement and keep our communities safe. The men and women of America’s homeland security apparatus do important work to protect us, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress should not be playing politics with that.
So, once again, the kids at each end of the country road are revving their engines and threatening to race down the tunnel of tall corn toward each other.
Homeland Security Watch typically works to avoid the starkly political. In this case, I felt the need to at least acknowledge the current context, which seems to be hurtling toward collision.
In my judgment both Democrats and Republicans and both Legislative and Executive branches have trapped themselves in an analysis of symptoms. The underlying condition is not unknown. Last week Secretary Johnson mentioned it briefly,
Much of illegal migration is seasonal. The poverty and violence that are the “push factors” in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador still exist. The economy in this country – a “pull factor” — is getting better. There is still more we can and should do.
Push and pull are the essential elements of immigration physics. Presumably we do not want to reduce the pull. That leaves dealing with push. How can we influence the force, reduce the speed, or change the direction of what’s pushing toward us?
Current approaches mostly wait to treat the issue until contact is made or imminent. So we increase our investment in border protection and argue over deportation. Physics also allows action-at-a-distance. Indeed in most cases, a small change in velocity introduced at a great distance has a much more profound effect than enormous force introduced at contact.
Last Spring and early Summer we saw a huge push of very young people toward our Southern border. The push originated largely in three Central American states. The force of the push related — and will relate — to poverty and especially violence.
In 2012 the Council on Foreign Relations published a special report that found:
Violent crime in Central America—particularly in the “northern triangle” of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala—is reaching breathtaking levels. Murder rates in the region are among the highest in the world. To a certain extent, Central America’s predicament is one of geography—it is sandwiched between some of the world’s largest drug producers in South America and the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs, the United States. The region is awash in weapons and gunmen, and high rates of poverty ensure substantial numbers of willing recruits for organized crime syndicates. Weak, underfunded, and sometimes corrupt governments struggle to keep up with the challenge.
The CFR report goes on to recommend a series of steps designed to bend the velocity and reduce the force behind the push factor. Many of its recommendations are reflected in the high level plan that Vice President Biden recently outlined. The President’s budget references $1 billion to address “root causes” in Central America.
But reading between the lines, I’m not sure I see much there. The what is thin and the how a mere mist quickly evaporating.
In late December Eric Olson and others at the Woodrow Wilson Center produced a detailed report on the situation in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador and recent US policy engagement with each. It is a resource that should help all of us understand the complexity of the issues and why previous US policy engagement has not been successful. They also outline several key recommendations to do better. To summarize here would be a disservice to their careful analysis. Please read the original: Crime and Violence in Central America’s Northern Triangle.
Many ancient physicists, including Democritus and Epicurus, perceived reciprocal collisions to be the source of both creation and destruction. Newton helped us understand the possibilities of mutual attraction and action-at-a-distance. The collision that now seems likely on February 27 strikes me as mostly distracting from creative opportunities that could advance much more humane and effective security.