Scott Bertram (5:32)

Not or are not those workforce workplace enforcement efforts necessary in carrying out immigration enforcement to shut off that magnet that perhaps will draw Illegal immigrants across the border, and maybe, if so, can we do it without the raids like the ones we've seen? But isn't workforce in place but an important part of any strategy?

JD Tuchilli (5:53)

It's an important part depending on what you're trying to achieve. If you're going for full enforcement of the immigration laws, it's true you do. You don't want the magnet of the jobs. But if you're talking about why are the American people unhappy at this point now, and you know, and seeing the numbers drop in terms of approval for border control policy, it's because they don't necessarily want full enforcement of the immigration laws. What they're looking for is a, is deportation of criminals, violent gang members, people who might take over an apartment complex or commit a murder, a violent crime of some sort. So what you have to decide is what is the goal? If it's full enforcement, then yes, workplaces have to be targeted. But if you're going after violent criminals who scare the public and it turns out that the public is concerned about them and not about full enforcement of the law, well, then you've got to decide what you're trying to satisfy. Are you trying to satisfy the requirements of the law? Are you trying to satisfy the voters who turned away from one administration that they thought, that they've told pollsters they thought was deliberately, as a matter of policy, maintain the open border and embraced another one and promised to send the criminals back? Do you want to satisfy those voters or do you want to potentially alienate them in turn?

Scott Bertram (7:04)

You work into the weeds on some of the polling Inside this piece@reason.com I'm wondering if we see that Americans voters draw a bright line between illegal immigrants and legal immigration. Do we generally see people who say they're in favor of immigration, they mean legal immigration?

JD Tuchilli (7:25)

That seems to be a gray area where people seem to draw the lines between those who frighten them and those they think are going to contribute to society. They say repeatedly when asked that they wanted to be a pathway to citizenship, even for those who entered illegally. So there does not seem to be a bright line drawn by most survey respondents between those who abided by all the rules to enter the country and those who did not. Basically where the line seems to be drawn is are people coming here to be peaceful and productive or are they coming here to be predators? And that it's a clear line that you could see why people would draw it and people seem less concerned with the pure legalism of it. Not addressed in this piece, of course, is the fact that there really is not a very good easy pathway to enter this country legally right now anyway. And that's probably a larger discussion we could have have, but that's. The people are not drawing that distinction, by and large between legal immigrants and illegal, illegal immigrants. They're drawing it between productive immigrants and predatory immigrants.

Scott Bertram (8:29)

I do actually want to ask about that pathway question. How easy is it at this moment for immigrants to enter our country? And based on what you see, do people tend to say they want to make it easier for immigrants to enter the country if they do it the right way?

JD Tuchilli (8:46)

Yes. I mean, there's an interest in increased immigration. Support for immigration among the public is rising and support for reducing immigration has dropped. Reducing immigration was actually a majority preference last year. That's down to 30% support. That's a big drop in support this year. So most Americans don't have a problem with immigration and to a large extent support it Now. The problem is that we have, and this has been through multiple administrations of both parties, not had a clear way to get into this country without having great resources for a very long time. The Cato Institute published a report on this, I believe it was two years ago, where they actually charted the various pathways to get into the country legally, following all the rules. And it came out that among those who tried to do it the right way, less than 1% would succeed. Obviously, that's a frustrating and expensive pathway for a lot of people. And it then becomes attractive, obviously then if they try to make a better life for themselves, to jump the line, to do something else, if there's no real legal way of doing, of achieving the goal they want to achieve.

Scott Bertram (9:55)

We've talked a lot about polling numbers and public opinion in our conversation thus far. I do wonder to what extent immigration policies or immigration enforcement should be reflected or how much that opinion should be reflected on those enforcement efforts and perhaps a separate conversation about national interest or even rule of law. Where's the balance? Where do you see the balance?

JD Tuchilli (10:19)

Well, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you're talking about full enforcement of the immigration laws, then you're going to have to look at workplaces. You're going to be strict, you're going to get these high profile and sometimes awful raids and pulling people out of meatpacking plants and farms. But if you're talking about satisfying what seems to be the priority of the American people, which is to rid the country of violent criminals that don't belong here, then you're looking at a different focus so it's a matter of what you're trying to achieve, because what the American people want is they want the predators out, but they also want a pathway to citizenship for those who are going to be peaceful and productive and contribute to the country. So it really depends on what you're putting in place as a priority. What makes this more difficult question, of course, is the fact that the US for decades now through administrations, both Republican and Democrat, has not had a clear pathway to citizenship for people who don't have significant resources and a lot of money. The Cato Institute, I believe was two years ago published a report, included a very impressive flowchart of the ways, you know, the very twisted and byzantine path to try to get legally into the United States by abiding by all the rules. And ultimately fewer than 1% of all those who participated in the process are able to get through to the end and actually get legal admission to the US So you can see why it would be tempting for those who are looking for a new start, who are looking for opportunity to enter the country illegally, to jump the line. And the fact of the matter is the American people, great many of them are rather sympathetic to people who do that, but are peaceful and productive in their intent and in their conduct, not to members of, you know, violent gangs or just criminal actors of any sort. So ultimately it's who are you trying to satisfy? You trying to satisfy the hardline proponents of the law, or you're trying to satisfy Americans who want criminals out but want a pathway to new immigration?

Scott Bertram (12:18)

Do you also get the sense, and it's a bit of projection here, but do you get the sense that part of the public opinion on immigration and immigration enforcement was somewhat of a visceral reaction to the lack of enforcement by the Biden administration? Meaning seeing those videos of people streaming across the river, seeing border checkpoints being overwhelmed, that initial responses were sort of a snap back response to seeing those sorts of things happening?

JD Tuchilli (12:49)

Oh, absolutely. Harvard Capps put out a poll very recently along with the Gallup poll I cited earlier. And a significant majority of respondents said that they thought that the Biden administration had not only maintained an open border, but had did so as a matter of deliberate policy. This was not an accident. It wasn't incompetence. It was something that the Biden Harris administration chose to do. So I think that there was a very visceral reaction to reports of very high numbers of unauthorized crossings in the border, especially when those are coupled with growing crime reports linked to illegal immigration. So, yeah, people had a gut level reaction to that they wanted they didn't like seeing something that was, that was disorderly, that was out of control, especially when it had very apparently bad, bad consequences as a result of that. And you're probably seeing a revisceral reaction now to reports of families being split up and of citizens being accidentally scooped up and productive citizens being, you know, arrested outside of Home Depots and Seven Elevens when all they were doing was showing up to get a job. If the Trump administration had stuck with simply rounding the worst of the worst, and yes, they would not have gotten a satisfying a load of arrest number by doing that. If they had focused on rounding up the criminals and the gang members, they probably would still have a much greater share of support among the public. Now, that would have kept the public on their side because frankly, that's what the public was asking for.

Scott Bertram (14:16)

JD2Chile is contributing editor at Reason.com you can find him on X D2Chile and@reason.com his peace Americans want order, not cruelty at the border. JD thanks so much for joining us here on FUTURE of freedom.

JD Tuchilli (14:33)

My pleasure.

Scott Bertram (14:34)

Now to hear another side of the argument about the Trump administration's handling of immigration enforcement, we talk with Mark Krikorian, executive director at the center for immigration studies, cis.org you can also find him on Xarks. Krikorian. Mark, thanks so much for joining us.

Mark Krikorian (14:52)

Glad to be here. Thanks for having me.

Scott Bertram (14:54)

Also writing recently@the spectator.com how's Trump doing on immigration? Great. Mostly. As we talked today about the Trump administration's handling of immigration enforcement, thus far, we've seen data, we've seen figures that say a 93% drop in border encounters at our southern border. Do you feel that's a real lasting shift? We've seen temporary pauses or temporary reductions in the past. Is this just a pause before the next surge or a real change?

Mark Krikorian (15:27)

Well, it's too early to tell, but I think it's a real change because the initial effort of tamping down crossings at the border is almost is like the easy part because it was so out of control under Biden. The question will be as to whether it's a lasting change is what are they putting in place to make sure that when there is an increase in pressure in the future, and that probably will happen, they'll be able to deal with it. And I think they are taking those steps because they're expanding border fencing, which on its own isn't a magic solution, but it's an important part of controlling the border. They Are also you integrating new policies that will likely in the future help? For instance, federally owned land in the immediate border area has now been designated a military reservation under what's called the Roosevelt Easement. And what that means is that MPs can arrest illegal aliens as trespassers now, and that U.S. attorneys can charge them criminally, not just for illegal entry, which is itself a crime, but for trespassing as well. And so, you know, will that in itself be a solution again? No. You can always get a bad administration. For instance, the main thing that has succeeded in turning off the flow mostly at the border, is that they're no longer letting people go when they catch them. And detention is key. Look, President, you know, AOC or President Gavin Newsom could change that and just start letting them all go again. So nothing's guaranteed. But I think, clearly, for the duration of this administration, and knock on wood, the, you know, J.D. vance administration or whatever, I, I think we're going to see the border as, you know, no longer a crisis. It's always going to be a nuisance. Smugglers are already looking. They're using boats to go up the California coast and then cut east to let people let illegal aliens in further away from the border. Stuff like that's always going to happen. But no, for the, at least the duration of this administration, I do not think we're going to see significant surges of people at the border like we did over the past four years.

Scott Bertram (18:09)

You also suggest that self deportation is underway with maybe 1 million leaving the country. Self deportation was something that was sort of laughed at for years by those on the left. Why is it happening now? What are the circumstances that are leading it to become a reality?

Mark Krikorian (18:27)

Well, it's always been a reality to some degree. What people don't understand is that the reason the illegal population isn't even bigger than it is is because every year there's certain significant number of illegal aliens who just leave on their own for their own reasons. And what we're seeing now is an increase in that. Our estimate is that the illegal population dropped, has dropped about a million people since Trump took over. Some of that is people being deported, but most of that seems to be people leaving on their own. And the administration has made a big push in that regard. They've made clear that if that going home on your own is going to be a better option, it's a more dignified way of going home. You don't get arrested. Do it on your own terms and your own time. Pack up the kids, pack up your car and go back. And you know, it's, it's something people do, so why don't you do that? And they've also even started a, a bonus program for people who arrange to go home through this app called cbp. Home is what it's called now. The Biden people used it to enable illegal immigrants to schedule their illegal immigration into the country. The Trump people have renamed it and are using it to help people schedule their departure from the country. And if you do that, they're giving out thousand dollars bonus when you get home. So combined with just the general environment of increased enforcement that you may not want to get caught up in, it makes perfect sense that self deportations are increasing as well as the ICE deportations.

Scott Bertram (20:15)

The work site raids or collateral arrests, as they're referred to. In your piece at the Spectator, there's a question, or at least a debate, a conversation about whether Americans will tolerate those sorts of actions in the execution of cutting off illegal immigration and deporting those who are here. What can be said or what should be said to convince them that it's not too much and it's not simply cruelty?

Mark Krikorian (20:46)

Work site enforcement is important, and one of the ways to make sure people understand that is you need to explain it to them. The president and a lot of politicians and others have been focusing on criminals that have been detained and removed by ice. And that's good. Everybody is in favor. Well, the hard left isn't, but everybody else is in favor of deporting criminals who are illegal aliens. But most illegal aliens aren't criminals. They're just regular people. They've committed a number of crimes, crossing illegally, usually some kind of ID fraud, tax fraud. So there's a list of genuine crimes even regular illegal immigrants have committed. But when people think of, you know, criminals being deported, they're thinking about drug dealers and rapists and murderers and that sort of thing. Everybody's for that. But there's not that many of them, at least percentage wise. There's a lot of them, of course, because there's a lot of illegal immigrants. But most illegal immigrants are just ordinary working stiffs like anybody else. But it's important that the president and other figures sort of who help shape the narrative talk about the need to deport also regular illegal immigrants because of the benefits it provides American workers by freeing up jobs, tightening the labor market so employers have to do a little more hustling to find and keep workers instead of workers having to hustle to find jobs. Also, it helps taxpayers because illegal immigrants generally aren't eligible for welfare, but there's a lot of government spending on them. You know, the hotels in New York and all the rest of it. And also, if they have kids here who are US Born, they're eligible for all welfare programs. And illegal immigrants generally are poorly educated, therefore, they earn little money. And very often they can't even afford to feed their own children, even if they have two jobs. And so the taxpayer subsidizes them. And those people aren't criminals. They're just regular workers who aren't educated and don't earn a lot of money. And so my point here about how to persuade Americans that things like work site raids and collateral arrests, which is where you find people sitting around with the criminal you were looking for, you arrest them, too, if they're illegal. The point of that is that or the message that needs to be conveyed is that regular illegal immigrants also need to go, and there are benefits for that for workers, for taxpayers, et cetera.

Scott Bertram (23:27)

Do you get a sense or is there a feeling that if the border problem is taken care of, if the border is secure, in those visuals that we saw of people streaming across the river and people overwhelming border checkpoints, if that's taken care of, the Trump administration takes care of that, that Americans on the whole might be more lenient with those who are still here if they know no one else is coming across, that they'll be more lenient with those who are still here inside the US Potentially.

Mark Krikorian (23:57)

I mean, the survey data suggests something like that. In other words, that the percentage of people who are backing say when they're asked, you bass back mass deportations softens somewhat because the border is more under control. But and you know, in a sense, that was something Trump suffered from in 2020among many. There was a lot of moving parts obviously, back then, but in a sense, he was a victim of his own success because illegal immigration was more under control. And so people focused on other things. That's a real issue. And I think it's again, important for the administration and its supporters to make clear that this problem hasn't been solved, that one part of it is significantly better than it used to be. No question about it. But there's always going to be illegal immigration across the border. But even maybe more so, the next frontier of illegal immigration is visa overstayers. That's always a significant part of illegal immigration, but it's now going to be the main source of new illegal aliens are people who come in as tourists or students or workers and then just never leave. And There's a lot of that, hundreds of thousands a year. And my point here is that the administration needs to do a better job of communicating that the border isn't the only problem. And making real progress at the border is good, but they haven't solved this issue. They've only been there six months. And in a sense, the President has set him up for the kind of thing you're talking about by constantly talking about the border. And, you know, now that the border is under, you know, it's stabilized, let's put it that way, mostly under control. It's. You can kind of understand why some people would figure, okay, well, that's the main thing the President was talking about. He seems to have that under control, so let's move on to the next thing. So, yes, it's a real phenomenon, and I think potentially it's a problem because there's so much left in our immigration system that needs to be fixed.

Scott Bertram (26:17)

I have read some who are concerned that aggressive enforcement and deportations might alienate some of the Hispanic voters who came to Trump in 2024 and upset that that somewhat fragile coalition of voters that supported President Trump. Where should that or should that at all factor into the calculus of how the President executes this immigration enforcement efforts?

Mark Krikorian (26:44)

I'd have to say no, but it does. It should be included in how they think about talking about it and maybe even to some degree in carrying it out. But the answer there is nothing. Arrest illegal immigrants. It's made clear that illegal immigrants are of all kinds, and ICE is doing that. I mean, they always arrest, you know, Asian illegal aliens. There was an Englishman they arrested. It was a visa overstayer. And talk about that aspect of it, number one. Number two, focus on employers who are knowingly employing illegal immigrants. And that also goes to your earlier question about, you know, is it the kind of thing that might turn off voters in general and making clear that, yes, illegal immigrants, they're violating the law, they're going to be sent home. All of that's true. But the employers that are basically making it possible for this mass illegal immigration to take place also have to be held to account. That's harder to do under the law because the law against employing illegal immigrants, first of all, is only 40 years old. Before that, it was explicitly permitted to employ illegal immigrants. But it also is set up such that it's difficult for the government to make a case. You have to show that you knew the person was illegal when you hired them, or you found out and continued to employ him anyway. It can be done. And the government needs to both aggressively do it as a matter of its policy, but also talk about it and make sure people understand that businesses are not being let off the hook when the illegal immigrants themselves are also being sent home.

Scott Bertram (28:37)

A final question from Mark Krikorian. You talked earlier about the possibility of a president aoc, a President Gavin Newsom, who could reverse some of the executive branch, some of the White House changes on immigration enforcement. Is Congress needed to step in to make longer term changes? Are there particular aspects that Congress needs to get involved in here?

Mark Krikorian (28:59)

Yeah, absolutely. Congress has to step up because things that are done by executive action can, generally speaking, be undone by executive action. There are ways you can make that harder to do that sort of thing. But statute is much more difficult to change. It's stickier, if you will. And so there are just to give two examples of things that are really important that need to be fixed. One is parole. And parole in the immigration context is a little different. It's not like criminal justice, parole. What it is is a narrow, limited power Congress has given the president to let people in who have no right to come in under any other provision of the law. And it was intended for things like a witness at a trial who himself is, say a drug dealer and therefore inadmissible. But he could be paroled in, escorted to the trial, he says his piece and is sent back, for instance, or a medical emergency that happens right at the border. And there's no, you know, Mexican facility anywhere nearby, but there's a hospital right on the other side. Somebody like that can be paroled in. The thing is, it has been abused ever since it was created. But under Biden, that abuse was turned up to 11. And he used parole to let as one of the tools to create essentially his own parallel illegal immigration system. So parole has to be limited. There's a number of ways of doing that, but can only be done through statute. The other thing that Congress needs to do, and there's a whole list, but the other big thing that I would point to is asylum reform, because asylum is the big weakness for all developed countries in trying to control immigration. It was invented right after World War II, basically for, and I'm exaggerating a little, but not that much, basically for the handful of Russian ballerinas who were defending, that's what it was for. Well, times have changed and now it's a vehicle for mass illegal immigration because unlike regular refugees who are affirmatively selected by the government and brought into the United States, that could be done well or poorly, but it's a sovereign decision. Asylum is illegal. Immigrants coming in and saying, I qualify as a refugee and you have to let me stay, whether you like it or not. It's a surrender of sovereignty. And when it was a very minor thing, it was not such a big deal. Now it is, and asylum needs to be redone from the bottom up. There's all kinds of thoughts on how that should be done, but it's there are some things that can be done administratively, but like I said, they can be undone. Congress needs to make some basic changes to asylum law because we are going to face asylum related crises in the future, if only because it's such an attractive way for otherwise inadmissible foreigners to try to finagle their way into the United States.

Scott Bertram (32:18)

Mark Kokorian is executive director of center for Immigration Studies. At cis.org, find him on X Arks Krikorian and his recent piece at the Spectator. How's Trump doing on immigration? Great, mostly. Mark, thank you so much for joining us today on Future of Freedom.

Mark Krikorian (32:36)

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Scott Bertram (32:37)

We thank both of our guests for joining us today. J.D. tuchili, contributing editor at Reason.com, also on X@D2 Chile and Mark Krikorian, executive director of the center for Immigration Studies@cis.org he's on XRCricorian. To find additional episodes of Future of Freedom, go to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, a production of Franklin News Foundation.