Biden unveils immigration proposal that offers green cards and overtime pay to farm workers and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers
Wed, January 20, 2021

Over 200,000 temporary agricultural workers come to the United States each year. 

Davis/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images


President Joe Biden is offering foreign-born farm workers the chance to immediately apply for permanent residency.


Biden's immigration proposal would also give agriculture industry workers the right to overtime pay.


Each year, over 200,000 temporary agricultural workers come to the United States.

President Joe Biden is presenting a sweeping immigration reform bill to Congress on his first day in office, prioritizing a sharp rebuke to the Trump years. It would award permanent residency to farm workers who have kept the country fed throughout the pandemic, offer a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers - giving hope to one son of farm workers and brother of a Dreamer.

Those who receive green cards would also be fast-tracked for citizenship, part of an effort to provide a path to legal status for more than 11 million undocumented people currently in the US.

The bill, which Biden is introducing within hours of his inauguration, will also incorporate the central feature of legislation that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris introduced as a senator, extending overtime pay to all who toil in the agriculture industry.

To receive permanent residency, temporary agricultural workers - who have spent at least 100 days in four of the last five years working in the US as part of the H-2A visa program - would be eligible for residency if they pass a criminal background check. Residency, among other things, would give potentially hundreds of thousands of farm workers the freedom to leave an abusive employer, something effectively denied them under the H-2A program, where visas are tied to a company sponsor (over 200,000 such visas are issued each year, the vast majority to Mexican nationals).

"This bill is fundamentally different than what any other president has ever done in emancipating farm workers so they can escape pervasive fear and behave like free men and women," United Farm Workers President Teresa Romero, a member of Biden's transition team, said in a statement.

A reprieve for Dreamers

As The Washington Post reported on Tuesday, the "centerpiece" of the Biden administration plan is an eight-year path to citizenship for millions of undocumented Americans, providing them temporary status for five years and then a green card for three; those who pass a background check and pay their taxes would ultimately receive citizenship.

In addition to farm workers, those brought to the United States as children, as well as adults who fled natural and human disasters in Central America and elsewhere, would also be eligible to immediately receive permanent residency.

Biden is also poised to issue a slew of executive orders reversing his predecessor's more controversial policies, such as the de facto "Muslim ban" prohibiting travelers from countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia. The Post reported that he is also likely to reinstate a program providing temporary legal status to minors from Central America.
The real-world impact of Biden's proposal, should it become law

Ruben, an 18-year-old college student in Washington, is one of five children born to farm workers who came to the US from Mexico (Insider is withholding his last name due to parents' undocumented status). He spent summers picking apples and blueberries - backbreaking work that has led him to pursue a career in medicine.

He's relieved that the Trump era is over. Former President Barack Obama may have deported millions, but Ruben said he did not demonize and instill fear in millions quite like his successor did, "stereotyping Latino immigrants and just yelling out whatever he thought."

"My grandma was here and she would watch the news every day, "Ruben said, "and she would just panic. We just told her to stop watching."

Ruben campaigned for Biden, spending over a month in Arizona knocking doors in a state where the Latino vote delivered a knockout to Trump's hopes for a second term. He's hopeful that the stress of the last four years can give way to some optimism, purchased with his contribution to getting out the vote. For him, there's the chance that his family, including an older brother who is a DACA recipient, could stop living in fear.

His parents, however, in the US since 2001, have lived through two rounds of presidents pledging to make the immigration system a little more humane. Still, Biden's proposal, the most liberal in decades - with two houses of Congress to clear before becoming law - is to them no less than a potential godsend.

"They're kind of shocked," Ruben said. "They're pretty religious, so they just have faith in God that this one's going to pass."

Read the original article on Business Insider

Joe Biden's Immigration Bill Aims to Address the Root Causes of Migration. Will it Work?

Jasmine Aguilera, TIME
Wed, January 20, 2021

Migrants, who arrived in caravan from Honduras to try to make their way to the United States, wait at the border in Vado Hondo, Guatemala, on January 18, 2021. Credit - Photo by Luis Vargas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden sent an immigration bill to Congress filled with goals that are a far cry from the Trump Administration’s hardline policies. Along with proposals for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who meet certain qualifications, Biden’s bill plans to address the deeper goal of addressing the root causes of migration, particularly from Central America. However, while it is a loftier in its aims in how to tackle immigration, experts say that it will take a lot more than is being proposed to address the issues that cause immigration from the region.

Biden’s bill comes after a caravan of thousands of Honduran migrants heading north to the U.S. was dissipated by Guatemalan security forces. Biden Administration officials warned migrants not to make the journey to the U.S., but experts believe people from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala will keep attempting to migrate to safer locations such as the U.S. as they have in recent years because of the dire situations they continue to face in their home countries.

Through the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, Biden has put forth a $4 billion four-year plan that aims to decrease violence, corruption and poverty in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the home countries of many of the migrants who have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum in recent years. The bill would also establish centers throughout Central America for people to pursue refugee resettlement in either the U.S. or other countries.

Though the $4 billion is an increase in investment compared to the Trump and Obama Administrations, Ariel Ruiz Soto, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, says that $4 billion over the course of four years alone will not be enough to tackle the underlying issues. Investment from the U.S. needs to coincide with partnerships with the governments of Central American countries and Mexico, he says, and include special attention to education and jobs for youth, not just emphasis on security and enforcement measures, as was done under Trump and Obama. Improving economies could allow for people to have a stable future in their home countries, causing migration to decrease in the long run, possibly decades from now.

“[$4 billion] is an upgrade, and it will have significant consequences,” Ruiz tells TIME. “But it is only going to be effective if it’s sustainable over decades…it can’t be just four years, it can’t be eight years, it has to be sustained.”

It’s also an effort the U.S. should not undertake alone, Ruiz adds. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador also supports investing in Central America. López Obrador has worked with the U.S. and Canada on similar efforts made to address the root causes of migration in Central America, and in 2018 the U.S. backed Mexico by investing $5.8 billion. However, much of that money was already previously committed, according to The New York Times. “The United States by no means needs to be the only one doing this work,” Ruiz says. “What will make it more successful is if Mexico and the U.S. are speaking with the same voice about investment in the region.”

Any plan for investment should also cater to the specific needs of each country, Ruiz says. For example, 47% of Guatemalan children under the age of five suffer from chronic malnutrition according to the World Bank, and Guatemala ranks ninth in the world for level of risk to the effects of climate change, meanwhile in Honduras, 48% of people live in poverty and there is a high level of violence.

Investment by the U.S. and Mexico also means engaging with the private sector to create job opportunities in the Northern Triangle, Ruiz adds.

“Now that the new president (Biden) is here we are waiting for the answer, all of us immigrants who are here from Honduras,” one Honduran man, 18-year-old Eber Sosa who was in the caravan this week, told the Associated Press. “We are looking to see what the new president says to move forward.”

Violence continues to be high in Honduras and El Salvador, though homicide rates have been decreasing steadily, and Guatemalans face high unemployment, poverty and malnutrition. Hondurans were particularly devastated by hurricanes Eta and Iota in November. The three countries have also suffered economically as a result of COVID-19.

Ian Kysel, visiting assistant clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and co-director of the Asylum and Convention Against Torture Appellate Clinic, says he sees this effort by Biden as a first step in creating a regional immigration policy grounded in human rights. “Going back decades, the U.S. Government has failed to adequately invest in making rights and human dignity the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the region—on migration or otherwise,” he tells TIME in a statement. “Human rights are key to addressing the major challenges facing migration. Past administrations have heavily invested in deterrence and securitization, forcefully externalizing the U.S. border to the detriment even to those seeking protection from persecution.”

But whether $4 billion does end up being allocated to Central America depends on Congress. On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, announced he would be the one to introduce Biden’s bill. Menendez was one of the so-called “Gang of Eight” Senators who led the push for comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, an effort by former President Barack Obama to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants that ultimately failed in the House.

What to know about Joe Biden's pathway

to citizenship immigration plan

MOLLY NAGLE

Wed, January 20, 2021, 3:16 AM

President-elect Joe Biden will send to Congress an extensive immigration reform bill that includes an eight-year pathway to citizenship on Wednesday, following through on a long-standing campaign pledge to move on immigration on day one of a Biden presidency.

The new details of Biden’s legislation were first reported by The Washington Post, and confirmed by Biden transition officials.

Biden will send to Congress on Wednesday a policy that will include an eight-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants without legal status, and expand admissions for refugees to the country.

He would also take a different approach from the Trump administration’s border wall for enforcement, investing in technology at the border instead.

PHOTO: President-elect Joe Biden speaks during an event at The Queen theater, Jan. 15, 2021, in Wilmington, Del. (Matt Slocum/AP)

Biden, who worked as vice president on addressing the root causes of migration from Central American countries, will seek to do the same with his new legislation, the officials confirmed.

The plan tracks closely with the approach to immigration Biden discussed on the campaign trail, but expands on how Biden will structure the comprehensive overhaul.

MORE: Trump's immigration legacy: A border wall Biden vows to freeze

For those living in the U.S. without legal status as of Jan. 1, Biden’s planned pathway would allow for five years of temporary status, and the opportunity to earn a green card upon meeting requirements like paying taxes, and passing a background check. Eligibility to apply for citizenship would follow three years later.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris also spoke about the policy in a recent interview, previewing the eight-year pathway to citizenship, along with expanding protections for DREAMers and DACA recipients.

“These are some of the things that we're going to do on our immigration bill, and we believe it is a smarter and a more humane way of approaching immigration,” said Harris in an interview with Univision last week.

MORE: Trump-Biden transition live updates: Trump unlikely to issue pardons for self, family

Biden had long previewed his plan to send a bill overhauling the immigration system to Congress on the first day of his administration -- a significant move that places a priority on addressing the issue that the Obama administration was criticized for during their time in office.

“[W]e made a mistake. It took too long to get it right,” Biden said of the Obama Administration's record on immigration, during the Oct. 23 presidential debate.

While Democrats will hold a slim majority in both chambers in Congress during the start of Biden’s presidency, the proposal would still need to earn support from some Republicans in the Senate to pass into law -- testing Biden’s campaign trail pitch that he could garner bipartisan support for his legislative efforts as president.

Biden’s immigration push will be introduced as the country continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, and added to the ambitious legislative efforts Biden’s administration is already undertaking to get a handle on the virus.

MORE:Biden seeks early momentum on COVID and more: The Note

Biden unveiled a nearly $2 trillion COVID rescue plan last week to offer immediate relief to families struggling amid the continued economic downturn due to COVID.

Introducing the legislation is just one part of the aggressive start Biden is planning for the beginning of his administration. Over his first 10 days in office, Biden also plans to take executive action on a number of additional policy issues, including climate change, racial inequality and criminal justice reform.

On Inauguration Day alone, Biden will sign executive orders on extending the existing pause on student loan payments and interest, re-join the Paris Climate Agreement, and reverse the Trump administration’s travel “ban” on predominantly Muslim countries, in addition to putting in place a mask mandate on federal property amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

What to know about Joe Biden's pathway to citizenship immigration plan originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

HOW YOUNG LATINOS DELIVERED NEVADA TO “TÍO BERNIE”

Ana Maria Archila reacts, overwhelmed by the large turnout for Bernie Sanders during the caucus at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas, Nev., on Feb. 22, 2020. Photo: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept

Aída Chávez February 22 2020, 6:31 p.m.

ON SATURDAY, caucus-goers began gathering around 10 a.m. at the Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. It had started raining early in the morning — a rare occurrence in Las Vegas — and didn’t lighten up until the rain stopped in the early afternoon.

The high school, whose mascot is a jaguar, is located in a predominantly Latino, working-class neighborhood. Almost all the caucus-goers were people of color. The school served as the caucus site for 12 precincts, divided between the cafeteria and the gym. None of the caucuses were very crowded; a precinct chair guessed that it was due to the heavy rainstorm earlier that morning — giant puddles spotted the courtyard — and huge early-voter turnout, with some 75,000 votes across the state coming early, compared with a total 86,000 people who caucused in 2016.

Sen. Bernie Sanders was projected as the winner early by multiple outlets, with former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg vying for second place. By Sunday night, with 88 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders led every other candidate with 47 percent of the county convention delegates. Biden is a distant second, ending up with around 21 percent of state-level delegates. And entrance polls showed that Sanders was the strong favorite among Latinos, earning 53 percent of their votes.

After the debacle of the Iowa caucuses, observers looked to Nevada with trepidation, but Sanders’s campaign remained focused on its major strategy of mobilizing Latino voters, who comprise nearly 30 percent of the state’s population. In the polls leading up to the caucuses, Sanders not only had an overall lead, but he was also the candidate with the greatest share of Latino support, at 33 percent. While Sanders’s polling numbers had remained consistent since the summer, he benefited from a slip by Biden, who was leading among Latino Nevadans at 34 percent in June but fell to 22 percent support this month. In 2016, Sanders received 53 percent of the Latino vote in Nevada.



Voters, including Dan and Elvia Baca, check in for the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas on Feb. 22, 2020.Photos: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept

This year, Sanders redoubled his efforts to win their votes, not only focusing on turnout, but also organizing specifically for the caucuses. Those efforts — such as holding trainings in Spanish and providing translation services at the caucuses — appear to have paid off. One such training — for the “Strip” caucuses located on Las Vegas’s famous main drag so that hotel and casino workers can attend — took place Thursday night at the offices of Make the Road Action, an immigrant-rights group. Conducted entirely in Spanish, a young volunteer explained what a caucus is and how it works. The group concluded the training with a mock caucus, where they voted between prominent Sanders surrogates such as rappers Cardi B and Killer Mike.

In his victory speech from San Antonio, Texas, Sanders highlighted the support his campaign got from the group. “I wanna thank Make the Road and all of the grassroots organizations that helped us win there,” he said.


Related
Bernie Sanders’s Secret to Attracting Latino Support: Talking to Them


Sanders’s win is also thanks to young Latinos like 19-year-old Christopher Santoyo, who told The Intercept that he’s been volunteering for Sanders since he was 15 and worked to convince his family to caucus for the candidate.

“At first, they actually didn’t like him,” Santoyo said. “But I think based off the fact that I’ve been so involved in his campaign, and I’m directly reaching out to them telling them to vote, they’re supporting Bernie Sanders.” He walked some of his family into early-voting locations and said he now has elder relatives from coast to coast supporting Sanders.


Voters wait for the tally at the caucus at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas. Sanders supporters are gathered on the left, while on the right was the sole supporter for Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Photo: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept


When asked whether he thought other young people are convincing their parents to vote Sanders, Santoyo said, “One hundred percent.”

“I think these ideas are so radical to them. Like free college or a Green New Deal, Medicare for All. And then when you actually have a serious conversation as to seeing it through our lens, they really start to change.”

“A lot of them, especially my family specifically, they’re Latino so they listen to Telemundo, Univisión, and more corporate media. And they kind of echo those talking points. But when I fight back on it, they’re like, ‘Oh wow, you’re right,’” Santoyo said. “If you really speak to them, their mind will change.”

While cable networks were wrapping their heads around Sanders’s lead (Chris Matthews compared Sanders’s win to France’s invasion by the Nazi army on MSNBC), the mood at the actual caucuses was one of hope.




Voters gather for the Nevada Democratic Party caucuses at Desert Pines High School in Las Vegas, including Angelica Romero, left/top, and Ana Maria Archila, right/bottom.Photos: Krystal Ramirez for The Intercept


Belén Sisa, the Latino press secretary for Sanders, and Ana Maria Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy whose political arm endorsed Sanders, both teared up on the sidelines at Desert Pines as the majority of caucus-goers at one of the precincts huddled for Sanders.

“There are like a vast majority of people sitting in the Bernie side of the caucus,” Archila told me. “Brown people, mostly, who believe that a new world is possible, that it is entirely within our reach to have health care and free college and to end deportations, and I’m so moved by the hopefulness of people in a moment of so much darkness, and that’s why I’m crying.”



Listen to what @AnaMariaArchil2 of Center for Popular Democracy Action
said when I asked her why she was crying at one of the Nevada caucuses pic.twitter.com/4MxsSvZCFP— aída chávez (@aidachavez) February 22, 2020


For Pablo Montoya, 28, a first-generation Mexican American and the first of his family to vote, the caucus was an opportunity to represent the entire Latino community. “Basically what I’m trying to do as well is to give a voice to the Latino population as well,” he said, “to the Dreamers, to DACA.” Montoya supports Sanders, with Warren as his second choice.

Montoya wants to remake the Democratic Party — and he’s optimistic about the outcome in Nevada. “Basically, I’m focusing my choices right now for the people who are more focused on helping millennials at the moment,” he said, dismissing other candidates like Biden as the party’s past. “I think Bernie and Warren are ready to start a new Democratic Party, with new beliefs, with a new set of rules. And I really think we’re at a point where we can make that happen.”

Update: February 23, 2020

Culinary Workers Bucked Their Leadership by Backing Bernie Sanders in Nevada. Here’s What They Knew.

Richard (RJ) EskowFebruary 23 2020

Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders cheer as members of the Culinary Workers Union watch a Democratic presidential caucus at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino on Feb. 22, 2020, in Las Vegas.
Photo: John Locher/AP

DESPITE A HIGH-PROFILE battle with the leadership of Nevada’s powerful Culinary Workers Union leading into the caucuses on Saturday, Bernie Sanders emerged with a decisive victory — even dominating other candidates among culinary workers themselves, according to entrance surveys.

The big fear expressed by union leadership was the loss of the health care plan workers fought for several years to achieve. But union members who caucused for Sanders against the advice of their leadership may have been better analysts of their own financial system than pundits expected: Indeed, if Sanders does manage to enact his Medicare for All plan as it’s written, their coverage will improve.

A review of the Culinary Union’s health plan documents, along with other data sources, shows that it’s done an excellent job under difficult circumstances. The review also shows that the union’s members would be much better off under Medicare for All, and that this plan — like virtually every plan — is held back by deep flaws in today’s health care system.

First, the backstory: The Culinary Union’s Local 226 administers an employer-funded health plan called the Culinary Health Fund, or CHF for its Las Vegas members. Union leaders reacted angrily when Sanders, at a town hall, told its members that their employers would save $12,000 per employee under Medicare for All, and that they’d see that money in their paychecks. They fired back again after a barrage of online criticism from Sanders supporters.

“Workers should have the right to choose to keep the healthcare Culinary Union members have built, sacrificed for, and went on strike for 6 years, 4 months, and 10 days to protect,” union leader Geoconda Argüello-Kline said in a statement.

The union is proud of its health plan, and understandably so. They fought hard for it, and its coverage outdoes most employer-funded plans. Still, the union’s members would be much better off under Medicare for All. The same is true for most, and probably all, of today’s union plans. So why are so many people demanding the “choice” to keep them — especially if that means preserving some of the worst flaws in today’s system?

The Culinary Health Fund Has Done Good Work

The union’s plan, as well as the infrastructure it has built, are impressive.

The plan runs its own well-regarded clinics, and some doctors are salaried rather than paid by fee-for-service. This reduces insurance profit-taking (the plan likely has some form of reinsurance for especially costly cases) and removes incentives for physicians to over-treat, a problem that’s likely to get worse as investors and hospitals continue to buy up medical practices.

Workers don’t make premium contributions from their paychecks. That doesn’t mean the plan is “free.” Most economists believe employers compensate for benefit costs by reducing wages. But it does add a level of predictability to workers’ household budgets.

This puts the Fund’s members well ahead of the curve. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2019 survey of employer benefits found that 5 percent of workers in large firms, and 31 percent in smaller firms, pay no portion of their premiums. For those that do pay a premium, the average worker with employer-based insurance paid $1,242 for single coverage and $6,015 for family coverage.

There are no deductibles in this plan, either, which means members don’t need to pay a certain amount themselves before coverage kicks in. Here, too, they’re doing well compared to most other workers. The Kaiser survey reports that 82 percent of workers with employer health insurance have a deductible, and that the average deductible for single coverage is $1,655 (rising to $2,271 in small firms).

Copays (a flat rate per visit or treatment) and coinsurance (where the patient pays a percentage of the cost) are another area of out-of-pocket expenses. Here, too, the CHF plan beats most employer coverage. There are also no copayments or coinsurance for in-network primary care or some forms of specialty care. When these costs occur, copays are typically $25 for primary doctors and $40 per visit for specialists, and coinsurance is typically in the 18 percent range. These and other patient costs are relatively modest when they occur, when compared with other such plans.

There are copayments for in-network hospital and outpatient facility care, but there is no coinsurance. Again, the plan is ahead of the curve. Two-third of covered workers in the U.S. must pay coinsurance in these facilities, at an average rate of 20 percent. That can add up extremely fast.

But its members could do better.

Even this above-average plan falls seriously short of the coverage its members would receive under Medicare for All.

The maximum amount CHF members could pay out-of-pocket for their own care is $6,350 per person per year, $12,700 per family. That means households covered by the plan are not protected from financial catastrophe.

If the coverage is that good, how could they incur those expenses? First, the benefits listed above are for in-network services, and it can be challenging for working people to find in-network providers. They may have a preexisting doctor relationship, or may find themselves taken to an out-of-network hospital after an accident. (Provider access is limited in Las Vegas, but that can cut both ways when it comes to finding in-network care.)

The employee plan summary warns, “Be aware, your PPO network provider might use a Non-PPO provider for some services (such as labwork). Check with your provider before you get services.”

That’s not always top of mind for working people who are sick or injured and may need immediate treatment.

In addition, the plan only waives coinsurance and other costs up to “100% of allowable charges.” What charges are allowable is determined by the plan and while in-network providers cannot bill patients for the difference, this can create serious problems in some circumstances.

Provider choice is even more strictly limited for other forms of care. For example, the Culinary Health Fund provides some of its coverage solely as “capitated services.” This is an arrangement where a medical center or other provider serves members on a “per-capita” basis. Plan materials warn that, “If you need a capitated service, you can only visit the capitated provider for that service.” That is as strict as it gets, and it covers a number of grave conditions. If, for example, you have a form of blood cancer and want to see a specialist who is not part of the plan, this says that you can’t.

These programs typically give health providers a financial incentive to keep costs down. Although contracts normally have some provisions regarding outcomes too, that’s a source for concern.

The fund’s capitated service programs include “blood disorder & cancer services,” “cardiology,” “high-risk pregnancy,” and “mental health & addictions.” These specialties routinely deal with life-threatening conditions for patients and families who are already under extreme duress.

Shadow Work

The Culinary Health Fund plan imposes another major burden on its enrollees, and it’s one that virtually all private-sector health plans in this country place on their members: There is a lot of paperwork and legwork.

The need to find in-network providers is only the beginning. The plan’s “Forms and Information” web page alone contains more than 100 links. Although some of those links offer employees assistance and education, a lot of administrative functions are represented. They include a set of 10 documents on plan provisions and limitations, a “Co-payment Book” listing out-of-pocket costs for various services and providers, and a set of 12 forms. One of them, the “appeals form,” lists 11 categories for appeal including “late filing,” “maximum benefit,” “no prior authorization,” “non-covered service or supply,” and “non-PPO to non-PPO referral.”

Prior authorization is required for a number of services, as well as for some medications and more costly medical equipment. This places a burden on both patient and doctor.

Philosopher Ivan Illich coined the term “shadow work” to describe the enormous amount of unpaid labor that people are called upon to perform, inside and outside the home. The administrative burden reflected in these forms is one more category of shadow work that Culinary Health Fund members, and most of us in the current system, are called upon to perform. For a union whose members work hard, often for low wages, this burden must not be overlooked.

Diagnosis: Precarity

One form of shadow work that plan members must carry out reflects the economic and health insecurity imposed on them by the current system. If union members don’t work enough hours in any given two months (240 hours), they are required to pay the cost of their health coverage themselves if they want to keep it.

It’s not a simple process. They must report their hours for those months, use an online calculator to determine how many hours they are short, and then pay a per-hour fee for those hours. If they are short in January, for example, they will need to pay by April 30 to keep coverage through the months of May and June. If their employers failed to report their hours accurately (something employers have a financial incentive to do), there’s an additional process to address that.

Workers must then pay a premium of $4.74 for each lost hour of work. Employees who already live in financial precarity due to unpredictable hours are faced with an additional challenge: either paying an additional cost after working a short month, or take their chances and go without coverage. And since they already worked shorter hours during that period, they by definition have less money to make those payments.

Plan Comparison

Here are some of the advantages Fund members would gain by switching to Medicare for All:

Plan members would no longer pay any copayments or deductibles.

Plan members would now be able to see any provider they choose, without financial penalty.

Plan members would not have to wonder whether their provider has a financial incentive to provide less treatment (though they would conceivably have to worry about over-treatment).

Plan members would no longer have to fear the insurance-related expense, uncertainty, and paperwork associated with fewer work hours in a month. Their coverage would no longer depend on their work status.

All that “shadow work” would go away.

They would be protected from financial harm caused by the need for medical care.

They would still be insured if they, for some reason, no longer held their union job.

But would plan members really gain $12,000 in wages?

It’s not clear where the $12,000 figure came from, but the Sanders Medicare for All proposal would require employers to return any savings in health care costs back to their employees in wages or other benefits.

It’s hard to know for certain what the employers in this plan are currently paying for health care coverage. Matt Bruenig of People’s Policy Project annualized the $4.74 per hour “Self Pay” charge and estimated the total cost of their coverage at $9,859 per year.

That’s not impossible. Survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that average PPO premiums in 2018 were $7,149 for single coverage and $20,324 for family coverage. A typical split of roughly 50/50 between single and family coverage gives us $13,736 as an average premium.

But there are adjustments to be made and unknowns to consider. Workers in the Fund may be younger than average. That would make them both healthier and more likely to be single than the average employee. But their plan is also more generous than the average.

If we shift from a 50/50 split of single to family coverage to 75/25 percent single, we wind up with an average premium of $10,442 for the Culinary Fund plan — not far from Bruenig’s figure. But if we add in the cost of the plan’s more generous benefits, we might find ourselves back with the original, higher figure. The union probably doesn’t take profits off the top like insurers do. But it does use a third-party administrator, Zenith American, to pay claims, and the plan’s administrators add another layer of expense.

Without more information, a decent range for their per-employee costs is $9,859 to $13,736.

Now for the savings. The Sanders plan charges employers a 7 percent payroll tax. The average annual salary for all “Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations” in Nevada was $26,500, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The plan’s unionized, Las Vegas-based members almost certainly earn more, raising payroll costs. But they only need to work roughly three quarters of the full-time work hours in a month to retain their employer-funded coverage, which brings the cost back down.

Weighing all that (have I lost you yet?), let’s assume that the average yearly salary for a covered worker in the Fund plan is $32,000, making the average payroll tax $2,240. Our estimate — with limited data! — is that employers would save between $8,202 and $11,496 per employee per year under Medicare for All. That money would be returned to workers under Bernie’s plan.

Back to the beef: The higher number is close to Bernie’s $12,000, but the lower number clearly isn’t. Still, it’s a very decent chunk of change for most working people. Looking only from the perspective of workers, not union leaders who oversee the fund, it’s hard to understand the anger. Indeed, there may not be much, at least among the rank and file, judging from the results of the caucuses.

Why Do Some Union Leaders Push Back Against Medicare for All?

Then why was there such a furious response? The health centers administered by the plan have a strong reputation, and they could be funded and maintained under the Sanders plan. The union could also design other services, and could offer them to its members, their employers, or the single-payer system itself. So why the pushback?

David Dayen provides some political and institutional context for the Culinary Union’s response, but the heat isn’t coming from Las Vegas alone. As Reuters reported in August 2019, AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka said, “You can’t ask the American worker, who sacrificed wages and everything, to simply say: ‘Okay, I’ll accept this plan here.’”

That sounds a lot like the sunk-cost fallacy. Most workers probably would accept a plan that gives them better benefits, regardless of past history.

According to Reuters, Trumka also noted that “some union plans likely provide more benefits than Medicare.” That’s not accurate. Medicare for All has better benefits than today’s Medicare, and a side-by-side comparison with the CHF plan suggests it probably outperforms even the best union plan.

That is probably why other union leaders, like the SEIU’s Mary Kay Henry and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA’s Sara Nelson, support Medicare for All. The advocacy group Labor for Single Payer lists 21 unions who support it. But the controversy lingers, kept alive in part by politicians who oppose Medicare For All.

Now, perhaps the union believes it’s unreasonable to expect Sanders’s Medicare for All plan to be enacted as written, and that some of the generosity will be stripped out as it is whittled down to some version of a public option. That’s not an unreasonable concern, but in such a scenario, the fear they expressed — the loss of their private insurance — would be safely off the table.

Biden to sign executive order on immigration as early as this week: Sources

RACHEL SCOTT and LUKE BARR
Mon, June 3, 2024 
President Joe Biden is expected to sign an executive order on immigration as early as this week, according to sources familiar with the decision.

The long-awaited executive order would limit the number of migrants that would be allowed to claim asylum at the southern U.S. border. It would immediately send them back to Mexico to wait until the daily average goes down and, once it goes down, they would be able to claim asylum. The exact number that would trigger a pause on claiming asylum is still under deliberations, the sources said.

In recent days, members of Congress have been briefed on the executive action, according to sources familiar with the briefings.

Any executive order, administration officials caution, would be challenged in court.

"I anticipate that if the president would take executive action, and whatever that executive action would entail, it will be challenged in the court," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters last month at Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

Mayorkas and other members of the administration have urged Congress to pass the bipartisan border bill that was negotiated and proposed earlier this year.

MORE: Unaccompanied minors are representing themselves in immigration court, alarming advocates

A spokesperson for Brownsville, Texas, Mayor John Cowen confirmed to ABC News that the White House invited him to a meeting at the White House on Tuesday for an immigration-related announcement, and he will be attending.

El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser also confirmed he is attending. He told ABC News in a statement: "El Paso is a welcoming community, and that makes me very proud, but no community can continue the effort and resources we've expended on this humanitarian crisis endlessly. We are appreciative of the funding we have received from the federal government so that our efforts don't fall on the backs of El Paso taxpayers, but our immigration system is broken, and it is critical that Congress work on a bipartisan long-term plan to work with other countries in order to create a more manageable, humane and sustainable immigration system for our country.

"I look forward to hearing more about the president's plan on Tuesday, and we stand ready to work with our partners at the local, state and federal level on this effort," he added.

ABC News' Armando García contributed to this report.

White House expected to unveil sweeping immigration order

Bernd Debusmann Jr - BBC News, Washington
Mon, June 3, 2024 

The number of migrant arrivals at the US-Mexico border has been steadily falling in 2024. [Getty Images]

President Joe Biden is expected to issue a sweeping new executive order aimed at curbing migrant arrivals at the US-Mexico border as early as Tuesday.

Under the planned order, US officials could swiftly deport migrants who enter the US illegally without processing their asylum requests once a daily threshold is met, according to CBS.

That, in turn, will allow border officials to limit the amount of migrant arrivals, three unnamed sources briefed on the expected order told CBS, the BBC's news partner.

More than 6.4 million migrants have been stopped crossing into the US illegally during Joe Biden's administration - a record high that has left him politically vulnerable as he campaigns for re-election.

Migrant arrivals have plummeted this year, however, although experts believe the trend is not likely to be sustainable.

CBS - the BBC's US partner - and other US news outlets have reported that Mr Biden has been mulling use of a 1952 law that allows access to the American asylum system to be restricted.

The law, known as 212(f), allows the US president to "suspend the entry" of foreigners if their arrival is "detrimental to the interests" of the country.

The same regulation was used by the Trump administration to ban immigration and travel from several predominantly Muslim countries and to bar migrants from asylum if they were apprehended crossing into the US illegally, provoking accusations of racism.

Asylum processing at ports of entry is expected to continue under the order. About 1,500 asylum seekers go through the process at official crossings each day, mostly after setting up appointments using a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) app known as CBP One.

Mayors of several border towns - including Brownsville and Edinburg, both in Texas - were expected to be in Washington for the president's announcement.

Democratic lawmakers have also been reportedly briefed on the plan.

The proposal, however, is likely to be challenged in court, either from immigration advocates or from Republican-led states.

A White House official told the BBC on Friday that no final decisions had been made on possible executive actions.

In a statement, a White House spokesperson noted that a bipartisan border security deal failed earlier this year as a result of opposition from Republicans in Congress.

"While Congressional Republicans chose to stand in the way of additional border enforcement, President Biden will not stop fighting to deliver the resources that border and immigrational personnel need to secure our border," the spokesperson said.

"As we have said before, the administration continues to explore a series of policy options and we remain committed to taking action to address our broken immigration system," the spokesperson added.

Republicans criticised the Biden border plan as an election-year ruse and argued that US laws already exist to prevent illegal immigration, but they were not being duly enforced by the Democratic president.

News of the potential executive order comes as numbers of migrant detentions at the US-Mexico border fall.

Recently released statistics from CBP show that about 179,000 migrant "encounters" were recorded in April.

In December, by comparison, the figure spiked to 302,000 - a historic high.

Officials in the US and Mexico have said that increased enforcement by Mexican authorities is largely responsible, although many experts have cautioned the reductions are unlikely to be permanent.

The decline in migrant crossings at the US border comes at a politically fraught time for President Biden.

Polls show that immigration is a primary electoral concern for many voters in the presidential election in November.

A Gallup poll at the end of April found that 27% of Americans view immigration as the most important issue facing the country, topping the economy and inflation.

A separate poll conducted in March by the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that two-thirds of Americans now disapprove of Mr Biden's handling of the border, including about 40% of Democrat voters.

Biden prepares a tough executive order that would shut down asylum after 2,500 migrants arrive a day

SEUNG MIN KIM, STEPHEN GROVES and COLLEEN LONG
Mon, June 3, 2024 

President Joe Biden arrives on Marine One at Delaware Air National Guard Base in New Castle, Del., Sunday, June 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is telling lawmakers that President Joe Biden is preparing to sign off on an executive order that would shut down asylum requests to the U.S.-Mexico border once the number of daily encounters hits 2,500 between ports of entry, with the border reopening once that number declines to 1,500, according to several people familiar with the discussions.

The impact of the 2,500 figure means that the border could be closed to migrants seeking asylum effectively immediately, because daily figures are higher than that now.

The Democratic president is expected to unveil his actions — which mark his most aggressive unilateral move yet to control the numbers at the border — at the White House on Tuesday at an event to which border mayors have been invited.

Five people familiar with the discussions confirmed the 2,500 figure on Monday, while two of the people confirmed the 1,500 number. The figures are daily averages over the course of a week. All of the people insisted on anonymity to discuss an executive order that is not yet public. Other border activity, such as trade, is expected to continue.

Senior White House officials have been informing lawmakers on Capitol Hill of details of the planned order ahead of the formal rollout on Tuesday.

Biden has been deliberating for months to act on his own after bipartisan legislation to clamp down on asylum at the border collapsed at the behest of Republicans, who defected from the deal en masse at the urging of Donald Trump, the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Biden continued to consider executive action even though the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border has declined for months, partly because of a stepped-up effort by Mexico.

Biden admin quietly dismisses over 350K asylum applications from immigrants since 2022: TRAC

Greg Wehner

FOX NEWS/AP
Sun, June 2, 2024 

As the White House finalizes plans for a U.S.-Mexico clampdown that would shut off asylum requests and automatically deny entrance to migrants once a threshold is met, the Biden administration has continued to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants to remain in the U.S. with what amounts to amnesty, according to a report.

A report released last month by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan data gathering organization that tracks immigration cases and backlogs shows that since 2022, over 350,000 asylum cases filed by migrants were closed by the U.S. government on the basis that those who filed did not have a criminal record or were not deemed a threat to the U.S.

Once cases are terminated without a decision on the merits of their asylum claim, the migrants are removed from the legal system, and they are not required to check in with authorities.

It also means the migrants can legally go anywhere they want inside the U.S. without having to worry about being deported.

JACUMBA HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 20: Border patrol agents process asylum seekers at an improvised camp near the US-Mexico border on February 20, 2024 in Jacumba Hot Springs, California.

The New York Post reported that a memo sent out by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) principal legal advisor Kerry Doyle in 2022 told agency prosecutors to dismiss cases for migrants who do not pose a threat to national security.

TRAC’s data shows that in the same year, there were 173,227 applications for asylum filed. Of those applications, immigration judges ordered 36,250 of the applicants be removed from the U.S., granted asylum to 31,859 applicants. The other 102,550 applications were reportedly dismissed or taken off the books.

In 2023, there were 248,232 asylum applications filed, of which 52,440 applicants were ordered to be removed, 43,113 were granted asylum, and 149,305 were dismissed or taken off the books.

People, mainly from West African countries, line up outside the former St. Brigid School to apply for shelter, in New York City on December 7, 2023. There are approximately 66,000 asylum seekers currently housed in shelters in New York, which Mayor Eric Adams says is "managing a national migration crisis virtually single-handedly."More

So far in 2024, there have been 175,193 asylum applications and 113,843 applications dismissed.

The numbers are much higher than under the Trump administration, when in 2019 – before the pandemic – there were 87,018 asylum applications filed with 52,223 applicants removed from the country, 24,109 granted relief and 4,746 applications dismissed.

When cases are closed, migrants are no longer faced with deportation or removal proceedings. They are also not obligated to leave the U.S. as they are no longer being monitored by ICE.



June 2, 2022: ICE agents conduct an enforcement operation in the U.S. interior.

The applicants whose cases are dismissed are able to apply for asylum again or they can seek out other forms of legal status like a family-based or employment-based visa, or even Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The immigration court backlog has grown from 2.8 million at the end of Fiscal Year 2023 to nearly 3.6 million in FY 2024, with immigration judges being unable to keep up with the current flow of new cases into the system.

The number of new cases filed as well as the number of cases completed by immigration judges are both on pace to exceed all-time highs this year, the TRAC report notes, though the pace of completions will be unable to stem the growing backlog.


TOPSHOT - US President Joe Biden speaks with US Customs and Border Protection officers as he visits the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on January 8, 2023.

The president has been weighing additional executive action since the collapse of a bipartisan border bill earlier this year. The number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border has declined for months, partly because of a stepped-up effort by Mexico. Still, immigration remains a top concern heading into the U.S. presidential election in November and Republicans are eager to hammer Biden on the issue.

The Democratic administration’s effort would aim to head off any potential spike in crossings that could occur later in the year, as the fall election draws closer, when the weather cools and numbers tend to rise. Four people familiar with Biden’s plans were not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing discussions and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The move would allow Biden, whose administration has taken smaller steps in recent weeks to discourage migration and speed up asylum processing, to say he has done all he can do to control the border numbers without help from Congress.

The restrictions being considered are an aggressive attempt to ease the nation's overwhelmed asylum system, along with a new effort to speed up the cases of migrants already in America and another meant to quicken processing for migrants with criminal records or those who would otherwise be eventually deemed ineligible for asylum in the United States.

The people told the AP that the administration was weighing some of the policies directly from a stalled bipartisan Senate border deal, including capping the number of encounters at an average of 4,000 per day over a week and whether that limit would include asylum-seekers coming to the border with appointments through U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CBP One app. Right now, there are roughly 1,450 such appointments per day.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Lee and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Original article source: Biden admin quietly dismisses over 350K asylum applications from immigrants since 2022: TRAC

VIEWPOINT

The Myth of the "Poll-Driven" Democrat Is Cover for Conservative Policy Preferences

SPLIT THE PARTY IN TWO

Selective “popularism” is being used by the Democratic Party establishment to pursue reactionary ideological goals.

ADAM JOHNSON 

JUNE 25, 2024

IN THESE TIMES

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks in the East Room at the White House on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

(PHOTO BY KEVIN DIETSCH/GETTY IMAGES)




Apopular misconception has taken hold, even among many on the Left, that Democrats’ policy preferences are entirely driven by polling, by chasing what is popular at the moment. The general argument goes like this: because the modern Democratic Party is primarily run by lawyers, corporate managers and marketing types who are largely devoid of any long-term vision, ideological agenda or commitment to activists or movements for social change, party elected officials and their advisers simply put their fingers to the wind and chase what they think the public wants. They run from poll-tested idea to poll-tested idea in hopes they can marshal more than 50% of available votes.

While there is some truth to this perception, as a catch-all for what motivates Democratic Party priorities, this ​“driven by polls” narrative often obscures the more cynical aims of establishment Democrats, and how selective their appeal to what’s popular can be.

Recently, this mode of politics — much like the term ​“neoliberal”—has been reclaimed by corporate apparatchiks within Democratic politics under the label of ​“Popularism.” The concept, coined by writer Matthew Yglesias and political consultant David Shor, seems simple enough. As Vox​’s Kelsey Piper puts it, ​“People trying to win elections should talk about the political positions they hold that are popular, and not the unpopular ones.”

Well ho hum, sounds like some good country-fried, suspender-slapping political advice. Promote what is popular and downplay or deprioritize that which polls badly. Seems simple enough.

This framing, that Democrats are pursuing this or that policy because it’s What The Public Wants, seeks to remove agency or moral choice from politicians, and launder responsibility for bad policy onto a faceless public. When it comes to explaining the actions of the current president, this approach fundamentally serves as a conversation-stopper: Look, Biden is just doing what voters want. Under this line of reasoning, we can’t really be too upset at any right-wing turns by Democrats because they are simply Responding To The Market.

But a deeper analysis shows this isn’t really true, and is more often than not a sleight of hand — a clever use of rhetoric that seeks to evade deeper ideological conflict in favor of maintaining the status-quo. Those gaining power and money under the banner of liberalism while promoting conservative (often cruel, classist and racist) positions would rather eat glass than have to defend those positions on their merits. Appealing to doing what may be unseemly, but necessary, because it’s What The Public Is Demanding avoids this awkward debate altogether. They’re not moral agents pushing a particular worldview, afterall, but messengers of the people, and one can’t really get mad at the messenger.

Let’s take one recent example. Many Biden defenders insist, or heavily imply, that the president’s right-wing turn on ​“border security” is motivated by broad public popularity—that they Have No Choice but to adopt a hard right turn because ​“70% of Americans support” it. But polls also show:


84% of Americans support adding dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare


74% of American voters say they still believe that ​“increasing funding for child care and early childhood education programs is an important priority”


72% of Americans want to expand Social Security


71% of Americans support government funded universal pre-K.


69% of Americans support Medicare for All


67% of Americans support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza


66% of Americans support 2 years of government-funded, free college.

These are super-majority popular policies, so why isn’t Biden running on any of them in 2024?

It’s true that Biden does have some popular populist policies: raising taxes on the wealthy and supporting more pro-union legislation, for example. But these policies are not central to his current campaign messaging –  – and they certainly have not been given nearly as much emphasis as Biden’s recent so-called ​“border crackdown.” And when it comes to Gaza, Biden’s recent calls for a ceasefire amount to simply rebranding his previous position of advocating a temporary pause in fighting for hostage exchanges, not an actual end to the war.

The campaign, instead, has downplayed economic populism and, according to their own strategists, decided to focus on more abstract ​“defending democracy” rhetoric and the theme of Donald Trump’s corruption. Which is all fine and good, and certainly merits mention. But if Biden, and the Democrats more broadly, are motivated by focusing on popular positions — as the defenders of their cruel border policies insist — then why isn’t the president running on policies like adding dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare? Expanding Social Security? Increased funding for child care and early childhood education programs? Government-funded universal pre-K? Free college? Medicare for All?

Some of these policies the White House at least nominally supported back in 2021 — like expanding Medicare and free college — but Biden was stymied by conservative Democrats and Republicans who blocked his Build Back Better bill. But why wouldn’t Biden say that he’s putting these policies on the front burner for his next term? Where is the Democrats’ own Project 2025 (the GOP’s far right playbook for a second Trump administration)? Why not put forward a bold wish list of popular progressive policy that will motivate the base and provide a grand vision for a more equitable future?

If Democrats really did things because they were popular and helped them win elections, then they would seemingly embrace such policies rather than running on cruel, racist policies like cutting down on asylum requests by migrants.

Selective Popularism isn’t just a mode of campaigning, it’s also a mode of media coverage — a form of conservative ideological reproduction under the guise of speaking on behalf of the Average Voter. The New York Times has mastered this particularly greasy mode of reporting, especially when it contains a racial angle, selectively highlighting what Black voters are demanding of Democrats — but only when it happens to overlap with what their wealthy, largely white readership and leadership want.

In 2021 and 2022, in the wake of racial justice uprisings, the New York Times published several reports on how Black voters were demanding more policing in their neighborhoods and Democrats were responding organically to this demand in the face of pressure to defund and reform police departments coming from (largely white, it was implied) Soros-funded nonprofit types and grassroots activists. The slippery, push-poll nature of this premise notwithstanding, what is noteworthy is that, even if readers uncritically accepted the premise that, in general, Black voters demand more cops and longer prison sentences in response to rising crime rates, this stands as a very rare instance of the New York Times repeatedly covering and centering the preferences of Black voters.

Black voters also tell pollster after pollster that they — far more than white voters—want more unionization, a higher minimum wage, reparations, free healthcare, free college, affordable housing and more money for schools. But, mysteriously, the New York Times did not make any of these demands the subject of numerous articles employed to pressure Democrats on policy and rhetoric. Why not? If the New York Times and the Democratic Party are simply compelled to respond to Black voter demands, why do neither entities seem to care, in any sustained or central way, about any of these left populist economic demands from Black voters?

This is how the ​“Popularism” scam works: When over 50% of the public, or a subset of the public, conforms to your ideological preferences, you highlight, focus on, and center this demand, painting it as organic, and laundering your ideological preferences through this faceless public. When the public, or a subset of the public, broadly supports that which is contrary to your conservative agenda — unionization, better wages, free college and free healthcare — you simply… ignore them.

The Popularism tool can be wielded whenever it suits a conservative agenda and pleases wealthy donors, but never beyond this utility. It’s a selective bludgeon. Similar to how Defending Human Rights or Fighting Corruption is utilized to justify militaristic U.S. foreign policy, Popularism is something that can be seen as good in the abstract, but when selectively applied by self-serving actors, reveals a more systemic and cynical approach to politics.

The entire premise of Popularism is its own form of anti-politics.


The entire premise of Popularism is its own form of anti-politics. The underlying premise that politicians should simply follow what is popular (or, to be more generous, emphasize that which they support that happens to be popular) assumes that perceptions are fixed or exist independent of partisan messaging. On the topic of immigration, as Yglesias and the Biden White House argue, the majority of the public is axiomatically conservative, and nothing Biden says or does from the bully pulpit can change that.

That Democrats have, since the Clinton era, embraced right-wing framing around immigration while in power, and that this, perhaps, is one reason why the public has xenophobic tendencies is, to their mind, not a factor (DACA carveouts being the exception, but even this messaging reinforced the assumption that undocumented immigrants were engaged in some horrible transgression). The possibility that decades of bipartisan fear mongering about ​“illegal immigration” — and the partisan media polarization around this framing — may shape the public’s opinion isn’t an idea that’s engaged with, much less refuted. It’s just taken for granted that politicians live outside of politics, that they don’t inform the public’s views but only act as a mirror for them.

But partisan polarization around topics is very real and measurable. For example, the percentage of Republicans who said they would back a presidential candidate who was a former felon tripled just days after Trump became one. Trust in the FBI and CIA completely inverted along partisan lines after the 2016 election over the topic of Russiagate. Indeed, under Trump, Democrats had more liberal views on immigration (relative to both 2016 and under Biden), in part, because Democrats were making pro-immigrant arguments, focusing on Trump’s gross rhetoric while appealing to universal humanism. Harvesting this movement against Trump’s border policies gained enthusiasm, votes and money. Rather than sustaining this moment and fighting for more humane border policies, Biden has instead—by Democrats’ own admission—embraced many of Trump’s core policies on the issue. Why?

We’re led to believe Democrats are only doing this because They Have No Choice and immigration is a Major Point of Concern For Voters. But, again, this explanation ignores how Democrats themselves feed that perception. Which is more likely: That powerful political actors in the White House and Congress are mere spectators responding organically to the general public? Or that there’s an emerging bipartisan view—reinforced by a national security state consensus warning about an upcoming deluge of climate refugees—that a hyper militarized border is essential to stem migration and protect U.S. interests while continuing to allow the fossil fuel industry to operate and create environmental havoc?


Migrants seeking asylum wait to be apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border protection officers after crossing over into the U.S. on June 25, 2024 in Ruby, Arizona.(PHOTO BY BRANDON BELL/GETTY IMAGES)

Note that the White House and Democrats rarely even bother making the moral or policy argument for adopting a cruel Republican-style border crackdown. They insist they are only doing so because the public demands it. And if they don’t, Republicans will win and do their plan plus a lot of other bad things. Conveniently, this approach avoids ideological debates, discussion of priorities, and the central issue of why both parties are so dead set on militarizing the border. It takes the politics out of politics and places blame for reactionary agendas on nebulous public preferences.

And this is the appeal of the myth of the poll-driven Democrat. Strictly speaking it’s true, but it’s true only within very narrow ideological confines. It’s true only insofar as it doesn’t offend big donors, the military state, or the corporate interests that dominate the mainstream Democratic Party. It’s true insofar as it only goes to the right. With the rare exception of Trump sometimes shying away from an explicit embrace of cuts to Social Security or Medicare, our media never insists that Trump or Biden are ​“forced” to go left because of the popularity of a number of left-wing policies.

Our elected officials, mysteriously, are only forced to go right, by the fickle masses who are compelling them into supporting reactionary agendas that just so happen to overlap with the demands of billionaire donors and the national security state. These policies are ​“poll driven” when they can help avoid messy public debates about which humans matter, and what agendas are worth fighting for. In this sense, hyperfocusing on polling as a way of understanding increasingly conservative Democratic Party priorities avoids asking deeper questions. It serves as an ideological and moral laundromat for a party leadership that, more often than not, adopts conservative positions for the simple fact that they and their rich friends and financial backers mostly just agree with them.

Adam H. Johnson is a media analyst and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.