If You Don’t Want Trump 2.0, You Need to Do Something About the Border

“Wilders’ victory is a warning for Europe” was the headline on the editorial on the Dutch election in Saturday’s Financial Times.¹  The editorial concluded: “[M]ainstream parties have to find credible ways to respond to voter concerns over immigration or they risk leaving the field open to extremists.”

In the United States the question of immigration and “the border” are tied up with aid to Ukraine.  The Associated Press reported yesterday: 

“Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has said the ‘best way’ to ensure GOP support for Ukraine is for Biden and Democrats to accept border policy changes that would limit the flow of migrants across the border with Mexico. …

To that end, a core group of senators, Republicans and Democrats, have been meeting privately to come up with a border policy solution that both parties could support, unlocking GOP votes for the Ukraine aid.

On the table are asylum law changes pushed by the Republicans that would make it more difficult for migrants to enter the United States, even if they claim they are in danger, and reduce their release on parole while awaiting judicial proceedings.  Republicans also want to resume construction of the border wall.

Democrats call these essentially nonstarters, and the border security talks are going slowly.”

I don’t know the details of what the Republicans are suggesting – or what they would accept.  I do know that the Social Democrats/Greens/Free Democrats coalition in Germany recently agreed with the opposition Christian Democrats on a new program that “significantly scales back social benefits for refugees, increases financial support for state governments and sets ambitious targets to speed up deportations.”²

Democrats and progressives in the United States need to look at what Germany agreed to and what the voters in the Netherlands did.  If they don’t figure out a way to come up with meaningful legislation on the border and a reduction in the number of “irregular immigrants and asylum seekers”³ coming into the United States, they could see Donald Trump elected next November.  

Maybe refusing to compromise on the border is important to them.  During the Obama administration, a number of Hispanic representatives refused to support stand-alone legislation to regularize the status of “Dreamers,” a bill that enough Republicans back then would have voted for.  The Hispanic caucus wanted a comprehensive bill on immigration.  They wound up with neither. 

If the Democrats and progressives today can’t, or won’t, come up with some way up to address “the border” soon, they could wind up with both Trump 2.0 and an even harsher border policy come next November.  I don’t want either of those.  Are they willing to risk it?
--------
¹ “Wilders’ victory is a warning for Europe,” Financial Times, November 25, 2023.
² Sam Jones, “Scholz hails ‘historic’ deal to curb migrants,” Financial Times, November 8, 2023.
³ In the phrasing of the Financial Times.  See footnote 1.

UPDATE (12/1/23 8:55 am): A version of this post appeared in "Voice of the People" in the Chicago Tribune, December 1, 2023.  See here (it is the third letter). 
FURTHER UPDATE (12/1/23 1:20 pm): In my letter in the Tribune, I should have focused on Geert Wilders's anti-immigration postion more than his anti-Islamic views, the latter of which he actually softened a little in the last week of the Dutch campaign.  Focusing on his anti-immigration position would make a better comparison with the situation in the United States.