An earlier version of this article was published in the On the Trail 2024 newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Tuesday and Friday mornings here. To submit a question to next week’s Friday Mailbag, email onthetrail@deseretnews.com.
Good morning, friends. Happy June.
3 things to know
- President Biden unveiled a cease-fire plan Friday to end the the Israel-Hamas war and release hostages, saying that Hamas is “no longer capable” of a major terrorist attack on Israel. But Israeli leaders have publicly rebuked the plan, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the war would not end until Hamas is eliminated. Read more here.
- Will you vote for a convict? That’s the question facing millions of Americans, now that Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of business fraud. That could either help or hurt Trump — it could solidify his base, or it could alienate undecided voters. Here’s an interesting analysis of both.
- Joe Manchin, the Senate dealmaker, is leaving the Democratic Party. He already announced he wouldn’t run for reelection this fall, instead dedicating himself to building a political middle. “I can speak to both sides without having a brand, if you will,” Manchin explained. “The brands have gotten so bad. If you have a D by your name, a Democrat, you’re supposed to hate Republicans.” Read more here.
The Big Idea
Biden’s border wars
On Tuesday, President Joe Biden signed a major border security executive order amid criticism for his administration’s immigration record.
The executive order will empower immigration enforcement officers to stop extending asylum protections when illegal daily border crossings reach 2,500 per day over a seven-day period. That threshold has been surpassed in recent days, and the executive order is expected to close at midnight, Politico reports.
The move comes at a tenuous time for the Biden administration — and Biden’s reelection campaign. For months, immigration has sat atop the list of Americans’ most important problems facing the country. Trump’s enforcement-heavy approach to immigration has become more popular since he left office. And the belief that immigration is generally beneficial to the U.S., which reached record popularity at the onset of the pandemic, has begun to slowly lose favor.
Border apprehensions are at all-time highs, though total border crossings are likely to be lower than the record. The Senate attempted to address the issue in February with a bipartisan border security bill, but it failed after receiving backlash from prominent Republicans, including Trump. The drafted bill included a trigger mechanism, similar to the one to be introduced by Biden today, that would stop asylum processing when border crossings reach a certain daily threshold.
Now, Biden attempts to address the issue on his own, deriving his authority from Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to “suspend the entry” of immigrations when deemed “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
I called Jennie Murray, the president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, to discuss what the executive order means and why a different solution is needed. Our conversation is edited for length and clarity.
Samuel Benson: What was your initial reaction to news about the executive order?
Jennie Murray: It’s not surprising that the administration is looking into ways to solve the volume at the border, because Congress isn’t creating solutions right now. I wasn’t surprised to see it. No one in the immigration field is thrilled to see 212(f) of the INA used, because it continues a precedence. We’ve seen three presidents now use it, and it’s just not a great way to deal with a balanced response at the border. We need to see Congress create solutions.
SB: The last time a president invoked 212(f) to close the border — Trump in 2018 — his attempts were quickly blocked by federal courts. Do you expect legal challenges to come out of this?
JM: Yeah, definitely. We expect the exact same response. There will be legal challenges. It seems likely that the same exact response that Trump received will be what the Biden administration will receive. While it’s under the president’s jurisdiction to be able to respond, the INA still provides people with the legal right to seek asylum once physically present in the U.S., even if it’s between ports of entry. I think a lot of people misunderstand the INA to say, ‘well, if it’s authorized under the INA, it means that they have to present at a port of entry.’ And that’s not correct. So, yes, we anticipate the courts will deal with it the same way.
SB: It seems there are two things in tension here — the president’s ability under 212(f) to seal the border, and a migrant’s ability to seek for asylum, both under the INA and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Who is in the right?
JM: The devil is in the details of the language, right? 212(f) allows a president to limit or suspend entry of non-citizens when he or she finds their entry to be detrimental to U.S. interests. Yet the INA also upholds the ability of anyone seeking asylum to do so when they’re physically present in the US. So, can any president, choosing to call on 212(f), claim that these folks are detrimental to US interests? For groups like ours, who are advocating on behalf of the value of immigrants and immigration to the nation — if someone is seeking humanitarian assistance because they’re fleeing violence, corruption, crime, a number of other things, as many of the migrants are right now — can the president prove that this individual is detrimental to the U.S.? That’s what hangs in the balance for the courts.
SB: What are the solutions you would like to see from Congress or from the President on this issue?
JM: We do have a border framework — a topline of what we would like to see. I’ll highlight a couple of things. One, Congress needs to resource the border. We need more personell and more technology. We also need better resources to support the individuals who are moved from the border to cities around the U.S. — those cities need resources to provide with welcome.
Second, we need to resource and right-size our asylum system. It wasn’t built for this volume of people. We could start with asylum officers establishing, determining or discrediting credible fear. Instead of folks waiting four to five years to go to immigration court, asylum officers could do that right away, within 45 to 60 days. If we expand the number of asylum officers and resources we have, that would help us to process folks more humanely. Whether you’re pro or anti on this issue, if, if folks can have an answer on their credible fear claim within 45 to 60 days, I think everyone would love to see that happen, right?
SB: Last thing I’ll ask — what do you wish every American knew about immigration?
JM: They should know that a vast majority of the country is in the moderate middle, according to our polling. They want a solution. They want an orderly border, but they want a humane response.
Also, we need to make sure that we stop thinking about this in a vacuum. There are 110 million displaced people around the world right now. In 2014, it was around 25 million. That’s a huge change in 10 years. We’re facing a global problem, and so we need to think about it that way. We’re playing this like political game. We make Mexico absorb all the people that are coming to our border, and then Republicans and Democrats are judging each other based on the volume, when they ought to be coming together. How do we, with our global partners around the world, stabilize these 110 million displaced people together? Rather than just looking at this as a US-Mexico issue, or a political issue between Republicans and Democrats in the US alone.
What I’m reading
Europe is bracing for Trump’s reelection and what it could mean for the U.S.’ alliances. As McKay Coppins spoke to politicians, diplomats and civilians from Germany to Estonia, one word kept coming up: existential. If the U.S. abandons NATO or stops backing Ukraine, what comes next? What Europe Fears (The Atlantic)
Hunter Biden’s appeared in court Monday at the onset of his criminal trial, dealing with his alleged illegal purchase of a firearm in 2018. First Lady Jill Biden appeared in court with him, and President Joe Biden released a statement: “I am the President, but I am also a Dad.” Hunter Biden’s Trial: Crack Cocaine, a Colt Cobra Revolver and an Alleged Lie (C. Ryan Barber and Annie Linskey, The Wall Street Journal)
Trump’s witnesses received benefits following their testimonies during the former president’s trial, a new analysis shows. Many of them are employees of Trump’s businesses or campaign; several received pay raises, promotions or appointments after they appeared as pro-Trump witnesses in Manhattan. Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign (Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica)
Tuesday trivia
Last Tuesday’s question: Of the 32 U.S. presidents who served in the military, 31 of them were commissioned officers. Which former president was not?
Congrats to reader Glen Green, who got this one right: James Buchanan. He served as a private in the Pennsylvania Militia during the War of 1812. His lack of military expertise was on display during his planned invasion of the Utah Territory, later known as the Utah War or “Buchanan’s Blunder.”
This week’s question:
Donald Trump will make his fifth visit to Nevada this election cycle when he rallies in Las Vegas on Sunday. Which presidential candidate visited Nevada most during the 2020 election cycle?
Think you know the answer? Drop me a line: onthetrail@deseretnews.com.
See you on the trail.
Editor’s Note: The Deseret News is committed to covering issues of substance in the 2024 presidential race from its unique perspective and editorial values. Our team of political reporters will bring you in-depth coverage of the most relevant news and information to help you make an informed decision. Find our complete coverage of the election here.