Immigration Detention Compromise

The number of Republican leaders that have made statements against our current policy to separate adults and children detained for illegal immigration is certainly a rather nice thing to see. It would be nicer, though, if it actually looked like it was going to result in a change to that policy. Right now it seems like the administration is still insisting on a compromise that changes the policy in exchange for the usual Republican wish list: tougher enforcement, money for the wall, etc.

Which does kind of beg the question: why is a compromise even necessary? Both sides seem to want family separation to end, so why do we need to worry about who wants other things and what we're willing to trade for them?

I think it helps throw some light on things if we look at how we got here. Well, that and I want to spell out exactly how what President Trump is doing is different from what was done under previous administrations.

President Obama did face similar problems when he was trying to figure out what to do with families of illegal immigrants, and he took quite a bit of criticism for his detention centers. The critical difference, though, is that President Obama's solution was to put the whole family in a detention center together. The major problem that came up was that it's not actually legal to keep minors in detention for that long (this is because of the Flores lawsuit that frequently gets mentioned), whether or not their parents are with them. As far as I know, there was never actually a solution to this; President Obama left office with the question unresolved. Some families were just let go, some were allowed out of detention pending trial, and some remained in detention contrary to the federal courts' orders.

Then President Trump entered office. As far as I can tell, he has absolutely zero interest in making immigration enforcement any harder than it has to be, so the first two options that involve letting people out of jail are out. And he also doesn't want to detain the kids longer than he is legally allowed to. Which means the kids are removed from detention, and the parents stay. I suppose he probably doesn't want to separate families, but he also doesn't want to let people out of detention pending trial, and he certainly doesn't want to not charge them at all.

Which sets up the compromise, as the Republicans see it: First, they give up on demanding pre-trial detention, both making it harder to enforce immigration law, which they don't want, and avoiding separating families, which they do want. But, since that's neutral overall for them, they're also going to demand something they actually want out of the whole situation.

It also, however, sets up my response for my Republican friends: If you're only willing to avoid separating families because you get something else you want out of it, then it's going to look like you don't care about the problem all that much, and you will take some criticism for it. If you want to avoid that outcome, you may have to give up on getting as much as you originally wanted out of this situation.