Immigration Reform Is Dead, Precisely When We Need It Most

Eric Cantor's shocking loss comes at a time when the United States is facing a critical challenge on its southern border.

Among the faithful, there has been at least faint hope that after the primary season ends and before midterms begin immigration reform might occur. President Barack Obama even held off on reviewing deportation policies in May to give space for a legislative fix. But now, with Eric Cantor's loss in his House primary to Tea Party outsider David Brat, that slim chance is pretty much nil.

The tragedy is that this setback is occurring precisely at a time when the human cost of our broken immigration system has again made the headlines, this time in the faces of thousands of undocumented children flooding across the southern border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended more than 47,000 unaccompanied youths at the border over the last eight months -- mostly from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras -- overwhelming U.S. border facilities and detention centers. With the UNHCR reporting that the numbers will reach 60,000 this year, this has the makings of a full-blown humanitarian crisis.

These kids make a perilous and expensive journey north, coming to escape terrible violence in Central America, which now has the infamous distinction of being one of the most violent places in the world. These nations' weak rule of law and geography along the Colombia-Mexico-United States drug route has encouraged cartels to move in, particularly as Mexico (with U.S. support) has cracked down on these criminal enterprises at home.

Added to the scourge of drug traffickers -- who have descended en masse in Honduras and El Salvador -- are gangs, including the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18 (M-18). Formed on the streets of Los Angeles, these groups have morphed into sophisticated transnational organized crime rings, bolstered when the U.S. government deported hardened convicts back home. These and other criminals who prey on and recruit youngsters have become so powerful in places such as El Salvador that the government has entered into a pact to stem the bloodshed. But with the truce's collapse in May 2014, violence has again spiked.

One of the challenges these youth and others face is the high bar for asylum. To be granted refuge, one needs to prove membership in a persecuted racial, religious, national, social, or political group. This can be hard to do, especially when the threat comes not from oppressive governments but from street thugs. As a result, most will fail to meet the standard -- and are then deported.

These children's desperation also comes in part from other aspects of our broken immigration system. The hardening of the border -- doubling the boots on the ground and the Border Patrol's budget over the last decade -- has made it both more expensive and more dangerous to cross into the United States. This has meant that many undocumented migrants in the United States instead stay, or stay longer, putting down roots rather than continuing a more traditional pattern of coming and going that scholars dub circular migration. Now here for the longer term, they want their loved ones beside them.

The UNHCR survey found that over a third of the children apprehended at the border had either one or both parents living in the United States. Even for those with green cards, the wait to bring children or other relatives legally can last years, if not decades. So parents make the anguished choice to bring their kids illegally in the hopes of reuniting. The more than 300,000 Salvadorans and Hondurans here through Temporary Protected Status (granted due to unsafe conditions at home), as well as those here without papers, have no such recourse to sponsor their offspring, even though many have been living and working in the United States for years, now integrated into our labor markets and communities.

The recent surge illuminates a larger problem -- the millions of families with mixed immigration status, seeking to be together but divided by our current laws. Some 4 million young U.S. citizens have one or more parents who are undocumented. In many of these families, some siblings are U.S. citizens, while others -- estimated at over 1 million -- live in the shadows, unable to regularize their legal status without going back to countries many barely ever knew and facing decade-long separations from their kin.

Not only is immigration reform the compassionate thing to do, it makes political sense. More than three-quarters of Americans support a comprehensive overhaul. Even among Tea Party Republicans, 59 percent were behind allowing a path to citizenship.

Cantor's demise shouldn't end the hopes for a better system. Other Republicans far more supportive of immigration reform won their races handily. And for those thinking beyond October's vote, appealing to Latinos will be vital to getting and staying in office. Passing immigration reform is the way for the Republican Party to get beyond the heated debates that helped bring down Cantor, and it could help the millions of children and their families caught up in the system yet already a part of the U.S. social fabric.

John Moore/Getty Images


The Real Winner in Afghanistan's Election

Why the Taliban can’t prevent the monumental success that marks this weekend’s ballot.

We don't know yet who will prevail in Afghanistan's approaching presidential runoff, but we already know the big winner -- the Afghan people. The big loser, of course, is the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies.

The first-round voting generated widespread excitement and high turnout, reflecting Afghans' desire to choose their own leader, and launched two experienced, pro-Western technocrats into the runoff. And despite the chorus of complaints that America is abandoning Afghanistan, the vote caps a five-year turnaround, when the U.S.-led "surge" of military and development aid salvaged a situation trending towards defeat. 

Today Afghanistan is becoming able to defend and develop itself; it is not the basket case ill-informed reports suggest. Indeed, as security concerns fade, the inward focus on economic and social challenges reveals the growing normalization of Afghan politics. The main threat it faces now comes, ironically, from the international community, where patience is wearing thin and pressures for a too-rapid drawdown of support could turn impending success into failure. 

Nearly 7 million Afghans defied Taliban threats by voting in the initial balloting on April 5 -- a 58 percent turnout, higher than that in many U.S. elections. Fully 96 percent of likely voters told pollsters that they felt electing their own leader was very important for Afghanistan -- a degree of unanimity rare in polls anywhere.

The election results, largely free of the fraud that marred the last vote in 2009, advanced two well-educated, staunchly pro-American figures to the runoff. The front-runner, Abdullah Abdullah, is a medical doctor who served as foreign minister under outgoing President Hamid Karzai. His rival, Ashraf Ghani, a Columbia-trained anthropologist and ex-finance minister, literally wrote the book on Fixing Failed States at a Washington think tank. It's hard to imagine better leaders to build on their country's recent progress. (The latest poll puts the race between them at a dead heat; the outcome is likely to turn on who can better mobilize his supporters.)

Outside Afghanistan, few appreciate how dramatically its mood has changed since the surge began in 2009. In January of that year, after four years of spreading Taliban insurgency, Afghans split evenly on whether or not their country was moving in the right direction. By December 2013, in an unpublished poll by the same research group, 58 percent said it was headed in the right direction, while just 25 percent said the reverse. (In comparison, here in the United States, only 27 percent said our country was headed in the right direction in April's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.)

Security, which had deteriorated before the surge, also improved after American and Afghan forces grew in numbers and improved their tactics. Today, more than 370,000 Afghan police and troops have complete responsibility for their nation's security. While imperfect, they do a more-than-respectable job in a country that has never known fair policing or an effective national army.  

The Taliban's impotence was obvious during the first round of this year's elections, which they had promised to violently disrupt -- and failed to. Their inability to engage in large-scale disruption was underlined last week by a desperate attempt to abort the runoff by killing Abdullah in a suicide bombing, which left the candidate unharmed in his armored car but killed a dozen passersby and bodyguards.

This failure is also echoed in the 90 percent drop in coalition casualties since 2010 and the rise in attacks on "soft targets" by frustrated insurgents. The Taliban may be a continuing problem, but they do not seriously threaten a military takeover of the country.

Afghans noticed the change: In the Dec. 2013 polling, nearly two-thirds rated local security as good. In fact, security no longer tops their concerns. Rather, the leading issues are the economy, infrastructure, and corruption -- as in other poor South Asian countries.

But even on these issues, things are looking up. Better security has helped strengthen the Afghan economy, as the circulation of goods and people becomes safer. Though Afghanistan remains one of the world's poorest countries, its GDP has doubled since 2008. This growth has measurably improved Afghans' lives, too: Seven in 10 feel that they are better off today than five years ago. 

With these gains, the Afghan government has consolidated popular support, while the Taliban are politically at bay. President Karzai's favorability rating is 77 percent -- a figure President Obama can only envy -- and the two runoff contenders' numbers are nearly as good. Meanwhile, sympathy for the armed opposition slumped by half between 2009 and 2011 to under three in 10, and remains low. 

There are two keys to maintaining Afghanistan's security. One is the importance of continuing funding for Afghan security forces, a cost shared by the 50-nation coalition and a small fraction of the sums spent in the past decade. The other is the presence of around 15,000 U.S. and coalition troops for logistical, training, medical, and intelligence support, as President Obama recently proposed. This, too, is a fraction of the peak strength of 150,000 coalition troops a few years ago.  

Beyond security, Afghanistan needs development, and development agencies have ambitious post-2014 plans. These include leadership programs for women to protect their post-Taliban gains, training for legislators, and support for potentially competitive exports (rugs, fruit, and so on).

Such efforts will help offset the economic effects of a shrinking foreign military footprint. So, too, over time, will the development of over $1 trillion in gold, copper, rare earth, and other recently discovered mineral reserves, which offers a potential path to prosperity. 

The Taliban can win only if the United States abandons Afghanistan, slashing residual U.S. forces, cutting funds for Afghan security forces, or neglecting development aid. If that happens, and a fundamentalist regime and safe haven for al Qaeda terror return to Afghanistan, the big losers may not just be the Afghans -- but Americans, too.