Following up on an item from last month, it appears President Obama’s strategy for immigration reform has come together fairly well. His plan has always been quite transparent: he’d focus heavily on enforcement and border security at the outset, which would, in theory, engender goodwill from Republicans and create some legislative breathing room for comprehensive reform.
And for four years, Obama stuck to his commitment, reducing illegal border crossings, increasing deportations, and boosting enforcement at a level without modern American precedent. By any reasonable measure, this president has been more aggressive on this front than any of his Republican predecessor, all in the hopes of convincing GOP lawmakers to work constructively on a comprehensive solution.
Of course, that only works if Republicans in Congress make an effort to keep up with the basics of current events.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wasn’t sold on DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s testimony that border security was vastly improved in recent years by major funding boosts, hiring increases, new technologies, as evidenced by a 78 percent decline in border apprehensions since 2000.
“I truly believe had this administration done a better job at enforcement…you would be in a much stronger position with the American people to ask for a more broad solution to the problem,” Sessions said at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, citing low morale at ICE and complaints from its union.
I don’t seriously expect every senator to be an expert on every issue; it’s just not realistic.
But Sessions’ ignorance — during a hearing on immigration, which he and his staff presumably did some preparation for — suggests there’s literally nothing the White House can do satisfy those Republican lawmakers who intend to oppose reform efforts.
For Sessions, the administration hasn’t done enough on enforcing immigration laws, which is the opposite of reality, and the White House isn’t in a strong position with the public on immigration reform, which is also the opposite of reality.
So how can policymakers have a credible debate?









