What the President Should Say Tonight
President
Trump has asked for TV time to make an address to the nation tonight. Yesterday’s news suggested he will address
immigration and make another appeal for congressional support to fund a border
wall. Some speculated that Mr. Trump
will declare a national security emergency and order the wall be built without
congressional approval.
Since I am
writing in the afternoon before Mr. Trump’s speech, I don’t know what he will
say. I can’t comment on what the
president said. I could, perhaps,
predict what Mr. Trump will say and make comments on that. But I won’t.
Instead, I want to write about what the president should say. It will be
helpful to also write what the president’s opponents should say.
The
president has repeatedly said that the United States needs greater border
security, specifically in regard to our border with Mexico. Often he has expressed a desire to build a
“wall” (or some equivalent) to keep out illegal immigrants—that is, people who
do not yet have proper approved paperwork.
The president has repeatedly said that we need to improve our border
security because lawbreakers of many kinds—murderers, drug smugglers, rapists,
etc.—are taking advantage of our current weak border security to come to the
US.
It is much
harder to summarize the arguments of the president’s opponents on this issue,
because they differ among themselves and offer diverse criticisms of the
president’s position. Some say the
country’s border security is already strong enough. Some say it should be improved, but with some
other mechanism than a “wall.” Some deny
the president’s repeated claims that illegal immigrants are the lawbreakers he
alleges. Others say many undocumented
immigrants are really asylum seekers, fleeing crime or poverty in their home
countries. Still others say our asylum
system takes too long to process asylum claims, with the result that people who
should be able to take refuge in the US are forced to steal their way into our
country or return to horrible fates in their country of origin.
From both
sides, it seems to me, we hear a great deal of overblown rhetoric. I suggest we move away from rhetoric—“Lies!”
“Treason!” “Racism!” “Wishful Thinking!”—to real evidence.
There are,
in fact, some lawbreakers who have crossed our southern border, taken up
residence in the US, and committed terrible crimes here. Therefore, it is true that if our border security
had prevented those lawbreakers from entering the US, some terrible crimes
would have been prevented. This is the
heart of the president’s case. What
should he say if he wants to make his argument persuasive? He needs to supply facts. How many criminals have
come in this way to the US, over how many
years? In those same years, how many non-criminals have entered in
the same way? What percentage of the total illegal immigrant group has committed
crimes after moving to the US?
Obvious
aside: The president need not give exact numbers; he can give estimates. But they must be reasonable estimates, based
on responsible research. This side
comment applies equally to the president’s critics. Don’t just throw out generalizations; give us
real numbers.
How many undocumented immigrants have
come to the US over our southern border?
Over what time frame? How many undocumented immigrant have
applied for asylum? What percentage of undocumented immigrants
ask for asylum? What percentage of asylum seekers has been approved? How
long do most asylum cases take to be decided?
Now, the
question of a border wall—or fence, or whatever—is actually a sub-question
about overall immigration policy. Giving
good answers to the questions I have suggested will not resolve basic policy
disputes. But good factual data would
clear away much confusion and let us debate the underlying questions.
